<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none;" alt="" src="https://dc.ads.linkedin.com/collect/?pid=319290&amp;fmt=gif">
Member Login

Monthly meetings

Information on MainStreetUSA

Information on Awards

Career Friendly Fees

Tools you need to become a politically
active and involved advisor.

Become an informal advisor to your
representatives on industry matters.

Support candidates for state and
federal office who understand the
value advisors and agents play in
securing America's financial future.

Information on Warchest


Washington, DC on May 19-20, 2020.


Text to come

Text to come

Get the latest industry news.

Information on Action Reports


Advisor Today has the largest circulation among
insurance and financial planning advising magazines. 




July 2020 Issue:


Congress, White House Prep for Next Coronavirus Bill

Congressional leaders and Administration personnel are prepping for expected negotiations on a late July coronavirus crisis response bill. Issues in play include subsidies for health insurance for the unemployed, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) modifications, employer liability protection, some tax issues, back-to-work pay, and unemployment benefits.


During the week prior to the Fourth of July and the beginning of a two-week Congressional recess, there were multiple hearings in both the House and Senate looking at how well the new coronavirus crisis response laws enacted are working. The hearings—held by the Senate Finance, House Financial Services, and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committees—also considered what additional new laws may be needed to help the U.S. dig out from the virus-triggered recession.


While Congressional support for another coronavirus crisis response bill is not universal, there does seem to be consensus that another new law should be enacted. However, there is considerable controversy about what the bill should (or should not) include. The key issues include:

  • PPP: The PPP, while widely popular, has been marred by a variety of glitches and stumbling blocks. New legislation to address these problems (see story below for more details) is likely in the next coronavirus crisis response bill.
  • Subsidies for health insurance premiums for the unemployed: High on the priority list for inclusion in the next coronavirus crisis response bill is a way to help people left unemployed by the pandemic pay for their health insurance. Ideas under consideration include subsidies for COBRA continuation coverage and expanded subsidies for Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance. This is not a slam-dunk; there are some who oppose either kind of subsidy and among those who support one or the other (or both) there are some who are insisting on restrictions on subsidized coverage of abortion services. There are others who are equally insistent that there be no such restrictions. So, this issue will be a battle.
  • Employer liability protection: Republicans’ top priority for the next coronavirus crisis bill is protection for businesses at risk of lawsuits alleging unsafe environments that resulted in the plaintiffs’ contracting COVID-19. Democrats are cautiously sympathetic to this issue, noting that businesses that strictly adhere to government guidelines in reopening should not have to fear being sued by either their employees or their customers. However, the GOP proposal on this issue has not yet emerged, although early indications suggest that Republicans will propose five years of protection for businesses complying with government guidelines as they reopen. Reportedly, the choice of which government guidelines to follow would be left up to each business. Some on the left fear the Republican proposal will be overbroad and will as a result deny legitimate lawsuits against businesses that were not adequately careful with their reopening procedures. How this issue will play out will depend on the details of the liability protection proposal. It is expected later this month.
  • Employee retention tax credit: There is bipartisan interest in expanding the CARES Act’s employee retention tax credit. The tax credit is and would continue to be refundable against payroll tax liability.
  • Taxes/targeted business help: NAIFA, in conjunction with and in support of life insurance companies, is asking Congress to include two important life insurance tax issues in the next coronavirus crisis response bill. One, the section 7702 issue, would change the interest rate used to calculate a life insurance policy’s maximum investment value. The other, the bond characterization issue, would recharacterize insurer-held bonds as ordinary rather than capital assets. Both issues are in play as negotiations on the next bill begin.
    Many lawmakers are looking at ways to help industries particularly hard-hit by the coronavirus crisis and that are continuing to struggle to recover. Plus, those same lawmakers are being bombarded by an ever-growing list of industries seeking extra help. At the top of the list of industries that may get help are travel, entertainment, and meetings/conventions. Ways to help these businesses range from restoration of full deductibility of business meals and entertainment, to a “travel America” tax credit, to acceleration of tax credits to which these businesses may be entitled in the future. Further payroll tax relief is also being discussed.
  • Paid leave: The Families First Coronavirus Response Act’s (FFCRA’s) paid leave provisions last through the end of the year, but Congress may tinker with the current rules. There are problems associated with individuals who could go back to work but for lack of childcare due to their children’s schools/daycare centers being closed—a reason that qualifies the worker for paid leave under the FFCRA rules. Lawmakers from both parties are looking at ways to resolve that problem. One possibility is to provide direct, Federal payments for childcare. Or, some lawmakers are looking at creating government-sponsored childcare programs.
  • Unemployment benefits: Current extra unemployment benefits ($600/week, payable by the Federal government through State unemployment programs) expire on July 31. Democrats are united in wanting to extend this benefit past its scheduled July 31, 2020 expiration date. Republicans, generally, prefer a back-to-work bonus approach.
  • Back-to-work payments: The GOP is touting a “back-to-work” payment to replace the federal $600/week unemployment benefit that expires at the end of July. One proposal—offered by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)—would give $450/week to encourage workers to return to work. Another, offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), would provide two $600/week ($1200 total) payments as a back-to-work bonus payment. Both proposals contemplate the payments only through July 31, 2020, and both would be on top of weekly earnings. Neither is as yet final, nor has either been viewed favorably by Democrats. Democrats continue to prefer a simple extension of the federal $600/week unemployment benefit.

Other likely issues that the negotiators will consider include an infrastructure package designed to create jobs, more stimulus payments to individuals, a payroll tax cut for individuals as well as for businesses, and more funds for State and local governments reeling from the cost of their own coronavirus response measures.

  • Prospects: President Trump and Congressional leaders from both parties believe more help is needed, and so another coronavirus crisis response bill is likely. However, the Democrats’ position—the House-passed Heroes Act—is a $3.5 trillion package, while the GOP wants to cap the next bill at $1 trillion. Serious negotiations—probably between Senate leaders (Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)), House leaders (Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Republican Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)), and Administration personnel (probably led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin)—on that bill are expected to begin on or around July 20. Insiders in Washington are betting on a swift conclusion to the negotiations, but as with all things Congressional, the discussions could extend beyond such artificial deadlines as the July 31 expiration of unemployment benefits. Still, at this juncture it seems likely that Congress will be voting on a new coronavirus crisis response bill around or soon after the end of July.

NAIFA Staff Contacts: Diane Boyle – Senior Vice President – Government Relations, at DBoyle@naifa.org; Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org, or Michael Hedge – Director – Government Relations, at mhedge@naifa.org.

PPP Loan Application Extension Enacted into Law

On July 4, President Trump signed into law an extension of the deadline for applying for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan. The new loan application deadline is August 8, 2020.

Both the House and the Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent (UC).

There are other PPP proposals also pending. One would extend through the end of the year the time during which PPP loans can be applied for. Also proposed is a provision that would allow small current PPP borrowers to apply for a second PPP loan. Another proposal is the Paycheck Program Recovery Draw Act, would make several changes to the program. In late June, that bill was subject to a UC request to pass it in the Senate, but UC was not forthcoming. So, the bill is still pending. It would:

  • Expand the definition of payroll expenses to include more employer-provided group insurance benefits than just health insurance coverage
  • Expand eligibility for PPP loans to certain trade associations (501(c)(6) organizations) with 50 or fewer employees for loans of up to $500,000 so long as the trade association is not principally engaged in lobbying and so long as none of the loan money is used for lobbying activities.
  • Make covered supplier costs and covered worker protection expenditures allowable and forgivable uses of PPP funds. “Covered supplier costs” are expenditures to a supplier pursuant to a contract for goods that are essential to the PPP recipient’s operations. A “covered worker protection expenditure” includes adaptive investments to help a loan recipient comply with federal health and safety guidelines related to COVID-19 during the period between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.
  • Permit a PPP borrower to select a covered period ending at the point of the borrower’s choosing between eight weeks from loan origination and December 31, 2020.
  • Create a simplified loan application process—the process for loans under $150,000 would not require borrowers to submit certain documentation but instead attest to a good faith effort to comply with PPP loan requirements and retain relevant records for one year. The process for loans between $150,000 and $2 million would not have to submit CARES Act-specified documentation but instead would have to complete the certification required by the CARES Act. These borrowers would also have to retain relevant records and worksheets for two years, and they may complete and submit demographic information.
  • Create new “recovery draw” loan products based on the borrower’s revenue size or on whether it will be a short-term loan.

The bill also addresses seasonal employment and lender issues relevant to the PPP. Its provisions would take effect as if they were originally enacted in the CARES Act (i.e., as of March 25, 2020).

Further, after the Treasury Department released information on current PPP loans and borrowers, Congressional eyebrows went way up at the number of loans granted to businesses owned by celebrities, law firms, lobby shops, and even lawmakers themselves. Insiders expect provisions to tighten PPP loan requirements to prevent these kinds of businesses from accessing PPP loans. The PPP still has about $130 billion to lend, so further funding is not a central part of PPP legislative change discussions.

Prospects: The next coronavirus crisis response bill will almost certainly contain PPP provisions. Negotiators – the leadership of Congressional Republicans and Democrats from both the Senate and the House, and the Administration – plan to start hammering out the next bill on or around July 20.

NAIFA Staff Contacts: Diane Boyle – Senior Vice President – Government Relations, at DBoyle@naifa.org or Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org.

DOL New Fiduciary Rule Applicable to Retirement Advisors Triggers Reaction

On June 29, the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) proposed a new fiduciary rule applicable to retirement advisors that has triggered reaction from both opponents and supporters of the proposal. The proposed new rule is open to comment until the end of the month.

On June 29th, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed exemption to allow investment advice fiduciaries to receive compensation, including as a result of advice to roll over assets from a Plan to an IRA, that would otherwise violate the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code.  The proposed class exemption is open to comments for 30 days.

At the same time, the DOL issued a final rule to effect the vacatur of its 2016 fiduciary rule.  As you know, NAIFA was one of the parties to the legal action that resulted in the DOL’s fiduciary rule being vacated in total.  This final rule reinstates the 5-part test to define investment advice fiduciaries and returns PTE 84-24 to its prior form.  This document takes the administrative steps necessary to conform the regulatory text and the text of the previously granted PTEs to the Fifth Circuit’s vacatur mandate.

The proposed exemption applies to properly licensed registered investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies (Financial Institutions) and their employees, agents, and representatives (Investment Professionals) who provide fiduciary “investment advice” delivered to ERISA Plan (Plan) participants/beneficiaries with authority to direct investments account assets, IRA owners, and fiduciaries of Plans or IRAs (Retirement Investors).

A more complete analysis of the proposal is discussed in the June GovUpdate and in a Memo from NAIFA’s outside counsel, Steptoe & Johnson.  Briefly, if the Impartial Conduct Standards (below) are met, the proposed exemption allows invest advice fiduciaries to receive third-party compensation, is product neutral, and allows proprietary products/limited menus with disclosure.

To be considered an investment advice fiduciary, one must satisfy all prongs of the “5-part test” for advice rendered:

  1. as to the value of securities or other property, or makes recommendations as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities or other property
  2. on a regular basis
  3. pursuant to a mutual agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the Plan, Plan fiduciary or IRA owner
  4. that the advice will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions with respect to Plan or IRA assets, and
  5. that the advice will be individualized based on the particular needs of the Plan or IRA

Investment advisors must meet these Impartial Conduct Standards:

  • Impartial Conduct Standards for all investment advice fiduciaries 
    • Provide investment advice that, at the time it is provided, is in the best interest of the Retirement Investor;
    • Charge only reasonable compensation;
    • Make no materially misleading statements (e.g., no material misstatements or omissions regarding fees/compensation, material conflicts of interest, etc.);
    • Seek to obtain the best execution of a transaction (consistent with current securities laws);
  • Written disclosure of fiduciary status under ERISA and/or the Code, as applicable;
  • Written disclosure of services to be provided and material conflicts of interest arising out of the services/recommendations being given, though there is not a specific form. We believe that it is intended that the Reg BI Form CRS will be comprehensive and satisfactory.

NAIFA is still reviewing the proposal and in discussions to focus our comments to the DOL.  There are certain requirements on financial institutions, definitions surrounding the 5-part test language and acknowledgment of fiduciary status that will likely be addressed in our comments.

Representatives of consumer groups are expressing concern about whether the proposed rules adequately protect retirement investors. They are also questioning whether DOL Secretary Eugene Scalia, who (prior to becoming DOL Secretary) represented the industry in the lawsuit challenging the now-dead DOL fiduciary rule issued in 2016, has a conflict of interest that would require a redo of this proposed rule. These groups are considering challenging this proposed rule, in court or in Congress or both.

Prospects: Comments on the proposed new rule will provide more clarity about whether this rule, like its predecessor, will be challenged in the coming months. And, comments will shed light on whether there are still questions that must be addressed, either in modifications to the proposed rule or in new rulemaking in the future. Further, it is likely that the outcome of the 2020 November elections could turn out to have a significant influence on the possibility of changing this proposed new rule.   

NAIFA Staff Contact: Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org

Treasury, SBA Issue Interim Final Rule on PPP Flexibility Act

On June 10, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Treasury issued an interim final rule governing the new Payroll Protection Program (PPP) Flexibility Act. The new rule fleshes out the modifications and clarifications contained in the PPP Flexibility Act that was signed into law on June 5.

The interim final rule interprets the language of the Act by saying it requires that a maximum of 40 percent of a forgivable PPP loan can be used for non-payroll costs. It further states that where a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan proceeds for payroll costs, the borrower will be entitled to partial forgiveness of the loan. This addresses criticism of the Act’s language which appears to require that none of the loan will be forgivable if more than 40 percent of it is used for non-payroll costs. However, there are some that question whether the agencies have the authority to interpret the statute’s language this way. They say that the plain language of the Act requires that no amount of the loan be forgivable if more than 40 percent of the loan amount is used for non-payroll expenses.

The interim final rule also allows a borrower and its lender to mutually agree to extend a PPP loan’s repayment term to five years when the borrower got its loan prior to June 5, 2020. For loans issued after June 5, the loan term is five years. Further, the rule states that post-June 5 PPP borrowers will only be able to use the 24-week covered period, while borrowers who received their loans before June 5 may choose to use either an eight-week covered period or a 24-week covered period. 

The rule also clarifies when repayment must begin. For borrowers who apply for loan forgiveness within ten months of the end of their covered period (which can now be up to 24 weeks) no payment of principal or interest is due until the SBA remits the forgiven amount to the lender (or informs the lender that no loan forgiveness is allowed). If the borrower does not submit a forgiveness application within ten months after the end of the covered period, the borrower must begin making payments toward principal and interest at the end of that ten-month period.

Per the interim final rule, the 24-week covered period begins on the date of the loan disbursement (which may be before the date the funds are received by the borrower). The rule also says borrowers that received their PPP loans before June 5 may choose to use the original eight-week covered period, or the newly-enacted 24-week covered period.

The rule also makes clear that borrowers must certify that they are using the funds to “retain workers and maintain payroll.” Further, the rules state that borrowers must state that they understand that a knowing use of the funds for an unauthorized purpose means the government can hold the borrower liable for fraud.

Prospects: More Treasury/SBA regulatory guidance is expected as borrowers transition from applying for loans to applying for forgiveness of the loans. And, Congress is likely to address lingering PPP issues in upcoming legislation.

NAIFA Staff Contact: Diane Boyle – Senior Vice President – Government Relations, at DBoyle@naifa.org or Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org.

House Passes ACA Expansion Bill

On June 29, the House passed an Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion bill, H.R.1425. The bill passed on a partisan vote of 234 to 179. It is a partisan “message” bill that is unlikely to see any Senate action (in fact, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the Senate will not take up the measure).

Among other things, H.R.1425 would restrict short-term limited-duration (STLD) health insurance to three months, overturning the STLD regulation that allows such insurance available for up to one year. It would also bar future regulations that are substantially similar to the STLD regulation the bill overturns.

H.R.1425 would also:

  • Expand ACA tax credits
  • Cap the amount an individual would have to pay for ACA-purchased health insurance at 8.5 percent of income
  • Authorize the federal government to demand lower prescription drug prices
  • Add more federal money to pay for navigator programs
  • Incentivize State Medicaid expansion by adding additional federal funds to the program
  • Provide more federal funds for the States to set up their own ACA exchanges
  • Make DACA program participants eligible for subsidized health insurance plans

The bill highlights a key election campaign issue. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is currently considering a case alleging that the ACA is unconstitutional, due to the repeal of the penalty (a tax, SCOTUS ruled) for failure to comply with the ACA’s individual mandate. Plaintiffs are arguing that because SCOTUS ruled that the ACA’s constitutionality is grounded in Congress’ power to tax the repeal of the individual mandate penalty/tax destroys the constitutional grounds on which the ACA rests. Thus, the States bringing the lawsuit say, SCOTUS must find the entire ACA is unconstitutional.

Prospects: SCOTUS will not resolve the question of the ACA’s constitutionality prior to the November elections, and so access to affordable health care will likely remain an important political issue for the rest of the year. The issue is polling as among the top issues on the minds of voters, who in November will vote to elect both the next President and a new Congress. So, expect considerable debate, although probably no legislative action, on health care access and affordability issues between now and the fall, when Congress adjourns for the elections.

NAIFA Staff Contact: Michael Hedge – Director – Government Relations, at mhedge@naifa.org.


IRS Eases Certain Cafeteria Plan, FSA Rules for 2020

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notices 2020-29 and 2020-33 allow mid-year election changes to health flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) and dependent care spending accounts (DCFSAs). The Notices also cover high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and also increase the FSA rollover amount.

Generally, Notice 2020-29 allows a plan sponsor to amend its plan to permit mid-year changes in employee elections to contribute to FSAs and DCFSAs. The Notice also extends the end date of health FSA or DCFSA grace periods for using account amounts left over from the 2019 plan year. Further, it allows retroactive relief for HDHP insureds using telehealth services.

Notice 2020-33 increases from $500 to $550 the amount a health FSA account holder can roll over from 2020 to 2021. It also specifies that health plans may reimburse individual policy premium expenses for the current plan year that are incurred prior to the beginning of the plan year.

Prospects: Plans must be amended, if necessary, in order to take advantage of these eased rules. Plan amendments can be retroactive, but must be made by December 31, 2021.

NAIFA Staff Contacts: Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org or Michael Hedge – Director – Government Relations, at mhedge@naifa.org

IRS Allows Companies to Reduce Safe Harbor Plan HCE 401(k) Contributions

On June 29, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2020-52, guidance allowing companies dealing with coronavirus-related financial hardship to reduce employer matching contributions to safe harbor plans on behalf of highly-compensated employees (HCEs). Generally, Notice 2020-52 allows sponsors of safe harbor 401(k) plans to suspend or reduce HCE contributions by August 31 without violating the plans’ notification requirements.

The Notice says that companies operating at an economic loss after March 13 can adjust their HCE contributions even if the HCEs were not given prior notice, so long as they send out a supplemental notice by August 31. This relief applies to plans that adopted amendments affecting non-elective and matching contributions dating back to March 13. However, impacted HCEs must be provided notice of the reduction or suspension at least 30 days prior to the reduction or suspension taking effect.

Prospects: Note that this relief does not apply to safe harbor plans’ non-highly compensated employee (NHCE) contributions. And further note that notice is still required, at least 30 days in advance, for plans that reduce or suspend non-elective and matching contributions for HCEs.

NAIFA Staff Contact: Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org.

Democrats Introduce Bill to Protect Workers at Bankrupt Companies

On June 25, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced S.4089, a bill to protect employees at companies filing for bankruptcy. A companion bill, H.R.7370, was introduced in the House by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

The legislation would restrict executive compensation programs and clarify that “the principal purpose of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the preservation of jobs to the maximum extent possible,” Sen. Durbin said. It would also establish new rules for payment of workers’ severance pay.

The bill is now pending before each chamber’s Judiciary Committee, the committees with jurisdiction over this legislation. Rep. Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Sen. Durbin, part of Senate Democrats’ leadership, is a member of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

Prospects: Despite sponsorship by key and powerful members of the committees of jurisdiction, this legislation does not appear to have much of any chance for enactment, at least this year. That could change if Democrats win broader power – more votes in the House and/or control of the Senate and/or White House – after the November elections.

NAIFA Staff Contacts: NAIFA Staff Contacts: Diane Boyle – Senior Vice President – Government Relations, at DBoyle@naifa.org; Judi Carsrud – Assistant Vice President – Government Relations, at jcarsrud@naifa.org, or Michael Hedge – Director – Government Relations, at mhedge@naifa.org.

IRS Releases Guidance on Claiming FFCRA-Covered Paid Sick Leave

On July 8, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued new guidance on how to report (and claim a payroll tax credit for) Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)-paid sick and family leave. Generally, the amount of qualified paid sick leave that is reimbursable to employers (including self-employed persons) under the FFCRA must be reported on Form W-2, Box 14, or on a separate statement.

The FFCRA allows a refundable payroll tax credit as the way to reimburse employers for FFCRA-required coronavirus-related paid sick and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.

Notice 2020-54 states, “Employers must separately state the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of section 5102(a) of the [Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA)], qualified sick leave wages paid pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 5102(a) of the EPSLA, and qualified family leave wages paid pursuant to section 3102(b) of the [Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA)]. Employers must separately state each of these wage amounts either on Form W-2, Box 14 or on a separate statement. Self-employed individuals claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits must then report these qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wage amounts on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns, and reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages."

Notice 2020-54 is posted at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-20-54.pdf.

Prospects: Notice 2020-54 reporting requirements must be followed in order to claim the payroll tax credit that will reimburse employers for leave taken for specified coronavirus-related reasons. Accordingly, this Notice is necessary help in the process of claiming these reimbursements.

NAIFA Staff Contact: Michael Hedge – Director – Government Relations, at mhedge@naifa.org

Agencies Issue Notice of Proposed Rule Increasing Flexibility for Grandfathered Health Plans

On Friday, July 10, the Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services will release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to increase flexibility for Grandfathered Group Health Plans with a comment period lasting until August 14, 2020.

In February of 2019, the Departments issued a Request for Information (RFI) regarding grandfathered group health plans and group health insurance coverage in order to understand the challenges that group health plans and group health insurance issuers face in avoiding the loss of grandfather status and determine whether opportunities exist for the Departments to assist plans and issuers in preserving grandfather status.

The comments received, from NAIFA and others, led to the Departments developing a proposed rule that would provide more flexibility for grandfathered group health plans and issuers of grandfathered group health covered. If finalized, the NPRM would make the following changes:

  1. Create flexibility for High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP) by allowing these plans to make increases to fixed-amount cost-sharing requirements (e.g. deductibles) that would otherwise cause a loss of grandfather status under the 2015 regulations. These changes are only allowed to the extent that they are necessary to comply with the requirements to maintain their status as an HDHP under Internal Revenue Code section 223(c)(2). This rule change would ensure that participants and beneficiaries of these grandfathered plans retain eligibility to contribute to a health savings account.
  2. Allow for an alternative inflation adjustment for fixed-amount cost-sharing increases by allowing increases in fixed-amount cost-sharing (e.g. copayments, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums) be determined by reference to a Consumer Price Index measure of medical inflation or by the most recent "premium adjustment percentage" published by the Department of Health and Human Services, whichever amount is greater. The premium adjustment percentage is published annually and reflects the cumulative, historic growth from 2013 in premiums for private health insurance, Medigap and property and casualty insurance excepted. The change would allow for plans to utilize another inflation measure to better account for changes in the cost of coverage over time.

The flexibility that NPRM provides would only be available changes made to plans that are effective on or after the effective date of any final rule issued by the Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor or Department of Health and Human Services.

The agencies are seeking public comment on the NPRM by August 14, 2020.

The NPRM can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/15/2020-14895/grandfathered-group-health-plans-and-grandfathered-group-health-insurance-coverage.

Prospects: Generally, NAIFA supports any flexibility provided to Grandfathered Group Health Plans. We will review the proposed rules further and plan to submit comments by the August 14 deadline. A favorable final rule is anticipated in the last quarter of 2020.

NAIFA Staff Contact: Diane Boyle – Senior Vice President – Government Relations, at dboyle@naifa.org or Cody Schoonover – Legislative Liaison – Government Relations, at cschoonover@naifa.org.

Ohio Proposes Updates to Suitability in Annuity Transactions

Ohio’s Department of Insurance recently proposed updates to its “3901-6-13 Suitability Annuity Transactions” rule.  The proposal is similar to the NAIC’s Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation that establishes a new standard of conduct that goes beyond the rule’s current suitability standard, but it is not a fiduciary standard.

Under Ohio’s proposed standard of conduct, when making a recommendation of an annuity, a producer or insurer must act in the best interest of the consumer under the circumstances known at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the producer’s or the insurer’s financial interest ahead of the consumer’s financial interest.  Additionally, the updates set forth four obligations that must be met, amend the supervision requirements for insurers, and extend safe harbor provisions to individuals that meet a comparable standard of conduct – including the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest.

NAIFA submitted a comment letter to the Department of Insurance on June 23. The letter commends Ohio’s leadership role in developing the model revisions. NAIFA was an active participant in the development of the NAIC revisions, and the adoption by the states of these revisions is a top advocacy priority for NAIFA.

The letter asked the DOI to consider two revisions to the Ohio proposal. The first is the deletion of or revisions to the existing exemption for certain direct response solicitations. NAIFA fails to see any public policy rationale for this exemption, as it would allow direct response entities to make certain recommendations of annuities without being required to comply with the rule.

NAIFA also suggested the department revises language regarding how producers are compensated. NAIFA believes the language in Appendix A titled “How I’m Paid for My Work” stating that commissions are paid by the insurer while fees are paid by the consumer will be confusing to consumers and give them the incorrect impression that under one of the scenarios the consumer plays no part in compensating the agent.

NAIFA Staff Contact: Gary Sanders – Counsel and Vice President, at gsanders@naifa.org

Georgia Senate Passes Bill to Positively Impact Agent Commission Rates

The Georgia State Senate recently passed HB 716 which rectifies one of the unintended consequences of the Medical Loss Ratio provisions of the Affordable Care Act - the degradation and even elimination of health insurance agents’ commissions.

Rep. Shaw Blackmon, a small business owner, sponsored the bill. Blackmon has worked for years to protect health insurance agents following the lead on legislation carried by the late John Meadows (R-Calhoun), a NAIFA member.

This bill requires carriers to file their commissions as part of their rate filings and gives the Insurance Commission the power to enforce them.

“NAIFA-Georgia was extremely pleased to see HB 716 pass the Senate unanimously,” said Brad Carver, NAIFA-Georgia’s lobbyist. “It is a win for our health insurance agents who badly needed relief until we can get bipartisan federal health care reforms done in Washington, DC. We at NAIFA-Georgia are proud of Rep. Blackmon for his leadership on this important issue.”

NAIFA Staff Contact: Julie Harrison – State Chapter Director – Government Relations, at jharrison@naifa.org