<p>Unless I’m missing something he’s worried about paying for some employees insurance but not all. Since there are only 20 I don’t see why he can’t give who he wants what he wants and send the rest to the exchange with some extra cash. But there was some concern about labor laws which made no sense to me at all. Is there a law about giving insurance to one but not another when there are only 20? I also don’t fully understand the part about who he wants to give it to and why. It seems to be because he’s worried if it’s not employer provided they’ll pocket the cash and he wants them insured which is a weird motivation for an employer, but okay. And employees do turn down employer insurance. I mean you can’t exactly force somebody to take it can you? Or insist that’s what they spend the money on if you give them a raise? And, why is that an employer’s business anyway?. I could be missing something here as well but maybe that helps a little. I think it’ s close. The visa stuff seemed less an issue the last time this was discussed. He said they make around 40K and some have larger families. I think those and the ones he wants to keep paying for but, not sure. It’s confusing.</p>
<p>“Texaspg – according to the list at healthcare.gov, individuals with “Non-immigrant Status (includes worker visas, student visas, and citizens of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau)” qualify to buy marketplace insurance and get subsidies.”</p>
<p>calmom - I asked this question earlier and CF posted a link earlier which was pretty clear that subsidies are given only for people who have at least a greencard. H-1s were clearly listed as not receiving a subsidy.</p>
<p>Deleted. Calmom posted correct information below about which non-citizens are eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>Texas, I can’t go digging up old links in this thread – I have no idea what CF posted to. If you know what it is, I’d be glad to review it. </p>
<p>Here’s the law that defines who is eligible for the tax credits:
<a href=“26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B</a></p>
<p>And here is the corresponding regulation:
<a href=“26 CFR § 1.36B-2 - Eligibility for premium tax credit. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.36B-2</a></p>
<p>The law refers to taxpayers who are “lawfully present” in the US – no distinction between green cards, H1 visas, etc. Just whether or not the individual is lawfully present. So I honestly think that “lawful presence” is the only criteria. </p>
<p>I’d add that while I am fairly confident that I know how to find and read the law, if you have questions about what is or is not legal for your organization, you might do a lot better to consult with an actual lawyer, rather than relying on advice from anonymous posters on the internet. None of us have enough information about the actual facts (who you employ, how long they are employed for, what their jobs are, how they got their visa, etc.) to truly advise you on all the ins and outs. You will be doing your donors a favor to spend a little bit of money for real legal advice in this situation. </p>
<p><a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/10/01/2708441/affordable-care-act-immigrant-types-coverage/”>http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/10/01/2708441/affordable-care-act-immigrant-types-coverage/</a></p>
<p>“Legal permanent residents who have lived here for less than five years. Legal permanent residents with incomes up to 400 percent below the federal poverty level can qualify for subsidized health care coverage. Those who have been in the country less than five years do not qualify for Medicaid.
Refugees, asylees, immigrants exempt on humanitarian grounds. All of these individuals qualify for health insurance coverage and Medicaid, even if they have lived in the United States for less than five years.
Palau, Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia residents. Under a special compact, the United States considers individuals from these three United Nations trust territories to be non-citizens who do not receive federal benefits. They do however qualify for marketplace coverage. They do not qualify for Medicaid.
H-1B, F-1, J-1 visas. Individuals who are on work visas, student visas, or have been in the country for less than five years are eligible to buy insurance through the health care exchange, but they do not qualify for Medicaid.”</p>
<p>That’s clear. Thanks, calmom. I posted information from another source, but as you demonstrate, the other source was incorrect.</p>
<p>CF, how do you get to "“Legal permanent residents” when the statute and regs simply use the phrase, “lawfully present.”?</p>
<p>Because I looked at a page that was wrong, calmom. I apologize for posting incorrect information and misleading people.</p>
<p>Sorry, it looked like we cross-posted – I wrote my “how do you get” post without having seen your “That’s clear” post. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, you cannot discriminate by age, sex, race, etc. But for a qualified plan, you cannot discriminate by income level. Thus, you cannot kick off the low incomers – and send them to the exchange – while keeping the high incomers. (Discrimination by income is not an ACA issue, but a DoL/IRS issue for qualified medical plans. And one needs to offer a qualified plan to be tax deductible.)</p>
<p>Texaspg, I found this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/hrqa/Pages/offeringdifferentbenefitsfordifferentemployees.aspx”>https://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/hrqa/Pages/offeringdifferentbenefitsfordifferentemployees.aspx</a></p>
<p>I don’t think that your assessment of whether an employee would qualify for a subsidy on the exchange would be considered a “bona fide employment-based classification.”</p>
<p>Flossy, where I work, employees are not permitted to turn down our employer-sponsored insurance – for good reason. The rates are calibrated on the assumption that we are a risk pool which contains mostly healthy and a few sick. If given the choice, healthy employees would be more likely to opt out than sick employees. In a small group like ours, and like Texaspg’s, even a few healthy people opting out could really mess up the pool and thus the rates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Texas, my concern with your plan is that IF an employer offers insurance for which an employee is eligible, they are then ineligible for the exchange. So I’m no certain how you could have a registered plan but have the other employees ineligible. Your broker should know, I hope. Perhaps using the classification system would work - eg part time employees who are not eligible for a company’s insurance plan ARE the eligible for the exchange. So perhaps you can get around this via plan documentation.</p>
<p>My understanding could be erroneous, but I had believed that the subsidy element was actually only available to permanent residents, though H1s etc could BUY on the exchange. As a PR myself and even though I’m full pay, the exchange required my Alien number from green card, plus a verification of it uploaded. I don’t know what happens if you put in a number of a temporary visa :)</p>
<p>If H1bs are not eligible for Medicaid, I’m unclear why they’d be eligible for subsidy, which is also a federal tax credit.</p>
<p>However, if you switch to SHOP, you at least sound like you’d have the 50% credit to offset your costs for a few years.</p>
<p>The other way you might look into is having a policy for your immigrant workers whereby you effect a reimbursement system monthly…the submit proof of payment on the exchange, and you reimburse it directly as an expense. Has your accountant discussed with you whether this runs afoul of any tax laws? It would be taxable income, but if you just gave a raise, that’s taxable income too so I don’t see a difference. However, I’m not sure if that would leave you exposed in any way if the workers in question turn out to have underpaid or lied on the healthcare gov forms and end up owing or having to pay back any subsidy. And the mere act of rei</p>
<p>If that were a viable system, then you might want to implement it across the board, reimbursing only what the employee had to pay. Sounds odd but strikes me as a legitimate approach.</p>
<p>If work visa holders can get a subsidy, I have no need to worry about managing a plan for some.</p>
<p>If they can’t get a subsidy, I need to create a process of a taxable reimbursement.</p>
<p>We have not been filing a return for a while and so filing one and waiting for a SHOP credit might be problematic in itself without prior established process of filing returns. </p>
<p>At this point, I’m not going back either, to see who posted what before the last two days.</p>
<p>This is HHS
Lawfully present immigrants with five years or less of US residency, without access to employer sponsored insurance, will be able to receive both premium tax credits and cost sharing tax credits towards approved plans that meet the essential benefits package outlined in the ACA. This includes such immigrants whose incomes are below 133 percent FPL and so, but for immigration status, would receive Medicaid. <a href=“The Affordable Care Act: Coverage Implications and Issues for Immigrant Families | ASPE”>http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Coverage/ib.shtml</a></p>
<p>Tpg, you may need phone chat with a local immigration attorney. What one says:</p>
<p>Under the ACA (beginning in 2014), all persons “lawfully present” in the United States must maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage for the whole year or must pay a penalty at the end of the year. This means that every lawfully present non-citizen in the United States must enroll in qualifying health insurance in the United States or pay the yearly penalty, unless the non-citizen maintains qualifying health insurance through an employer, individual, or government health insurance program. Lawfully present non-citizens include those persons in the United States with lawful permanent resident status (Green Cards); employment visas (E, H, L, R, or TN); and other miscellaneous lawful statuses (TPS, asylum, refugee status, non-immigrant visas, and deferred action/CAT/Withholding of Removal).
…Also, these websites allow lawfully present non-citizens to receive tax credits that will help them pay for their health insurance if their income is low.
<a href=“The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)”>http://www.abogadolozano.com/affordable-care-act/</a></p>
<p>I can’t get into LasMa’s link but it;s the same from the earlier Zane discussion. “Employment-based classifications.” Not individual circumstances. </p>
<p>Zane also discusses how you can reimburse with their proof of payment, but there are some applicable privacy considerations. We’re really not the right resource for this. It needs a local expert to assure.</p>
<p>Came to the thread to let you know that my daughter signed up dec. 23 or so and finally got her first invoice from BCBS. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a big no-no in most states - dunno about Texas. For example, a couple of years ago, California went and de-certified a bunch of in-state non-profits for failure to file a state tax return. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks LF. This is great information since the employment visas listed fits perfectly with what I have been looking for. It looks like the visas types I need to cover are part of this.</p>
<p>Question - How does the poverty level rule apply if the family has 4 members but only cover 2 through the exchange? </p>
<p>If minors are omitted from the plan, is there a penalty on the parents if the income earners are covered in the plan?</p>
<p>BB - Lets just say the organization has connections in the state which would not let such a thing happen. :D</p>
<p>^^regardless, Board members can be held personally liable. Are they aware? </p>
<p>edited to add: And are they aware that Officers and Directors insurance will generally not cover such non-acts (of fiduciary responsibility)?</p>
<p>Yes we are. The previous boards devised a scheme to pay sales taxes in one one area, probably to address this.</p>