Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor

Regulation and Compliance > Federal Regulation > IRS

IRS Gives Green Light To Debit Cards For Certain Health Plans

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

IRS Gives Green Light To Debit Cards For Certain Health Plans

By

Although benefits debit cards have been around for the past three or four years, with more than half a million currently in circulation, a lot of employers have stayed on the sidelines.

Employers were waiting for the Internal Revenue Service to weigh in on whether use of debit cards satisfied the agencys requirements under Section 125, as well as its substantiation requirements that purchases were only for eligible expenses under Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As of May 6, the wait was finally over.

In its formal guidance, in Revenue Ruling 2003-43, the IRS said that debit cards (or, more accurately, stored-value cards) can be used for the health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) offered with consumer-directed group health plans, as well as for flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

What this means, in a nutshell, is that electronic payment systems can, under certain circumstances, replace manual or written systems, paving the way to improved employee convenience and administrative efficiencies with the governments blessing.

Although few who have become familiar with these electronic payment systems doubted the cards could provide administrative efficiencies and convenience, the fundamental question initially was whether they could comply with IRS requirements that cards be used only for IRS-eligible expenses. In the following years, the industry saw new players bring in vastly improved technologies.

When combined with the IRSs recent green light on card use and its specific substantiation requirements, the issue is no longer whether cards can comply. Instead, employers, third-party administrators and other potential buyers are more concerned with how efficient a card vendors processes are in deploying this new payment technology in the employee benefits setting.

In its guidance, the IRS spells out the requirements for electronic substantiation of transactions, among other things. Fortunately, most of the requirements conform to current industry practices. But before we can appreciate where the IRS is going with its new guidance, it helps to look back at where it started.

The Three-Part Test. Before debit cards came along, the IRS used a three-part test to ascertain whether a Section 125 medical expense was eligible for reimbursement.

Each time an expense was incurred, an employee had to sign a statement affirming that the expense was allowed and promising not to seek reimbursement from an insurer for the same expense.

The employee needed a receipt or other third-party statement affirming that the employee had incurred an eligible expense.

An employer or claims administrator had to provide third-party substantiation of everything the employee was claiming along with a determination that the expense was reimbursable.

Although meeting these requirements may seem simple and straightforward, it has been quite paper- and labor-intensive. Thats why debit cards were just what the doctor ordered, as long as the IRS approved of their use.

In an attempt to comply with the first requirement, most stored-value and debit card companies had employees sign a statement prior to using the card affirming that the card would only be used for eligible expenses. And since each card transaction generated a receipt, it was assumed that the second part of the test would be satisfied.

As for third-party substantiation, there was some question as to how the IRS would address electronic substantiation of transactions. The pharmacy represents the one place where card users are most likely to incur ineligible FSA/HRA expenses–yet its also the setting where the majority of transactions occur and therefore critical to making cards acceptable to employers, employees and TPAs.

The most efficient approach to pharmacy transactions is to establish direct technology links with the nations top pharmacy benefit managers, which transmit the adjudicated amount of the eligible prescription directly to the pharmacist. Thats something only one card company has been able to accomplish to date.

When you consider that at least half of all FSA transactions take place in the pharmacy, the reduction or elimination of prescription-related paper can have a major impact on an administrators business, not to mention consumer appeal.

Fortunately, the IRS recognizes much of what already is taking place in the industry. The regulations provide employers and TPAs with enough detail to be able to use stored-value payment technology in ways that benefit both employers and employees.

Here is a summary of Revenue Ruling 2003-43:

Employees can certify prior to using the card that they will use the card only for eligible expenses, rather than signing a statement every time they incur an expense.

The IRS finds acceptable electronic data supplied by third parties, such as pharmacy benefit managers, in place of paper receipts. This is the third part of the original test used by the IRS and a critical element in its acceptance of card technology.

The IRS recognizes electronic transactions that match a plans specific co-pay. In other words, if the card technology can match a co-pay to an office visit or prescription drug, those transactions do not require further review.

The IRS also allows systems that automatically substantiate recurring expenses that match previously approved transactions of the same amount from the same provider. An example might be several chiropractor visits for the same condition that take place over several weeks. Once the first visit is substantiated, subsequent visits are assumed to be eligible.

In addition, the IRS spells out procedures for recovering expenses that are found to be unreimbursable: Employees can pay the plan by cash or check; the employer can collect the overpayment via payroll deduction (where permitted); the employer can offset the overpayment against a future valid claim; or the employer can simply add the amount to the employees W-2 statement as taxable income. These procedures also generally conform to current industry practices.

The one surprise in the ruling concerns Form 1099. The ruling states that amounts paid by employees to medical providers by debit cards are subject to reporting on Form 1099. This has never before been a requirement for FSAs, and the holding would seem inconsistent with the fact that it is the employee, rather than the employer, making payments with the card.

For these reasons, as well as because of the substantial expense and administrative burden the Form 1099 requirement would entail, the card industry is seeking clarification. The industry is still waiting for a response from the IRS.

The Future. Stored-value cards already have proven their ability to increase FSA participation rates. When FSAs introduce card programs, participation rates increase from 20% to 40%, and contribution levels from 10% to 50%. These increases have helped employers reap significant FICA tax savings–a welcome bonus at a time of shrinking benefits budgets.

The cards also should be a great tool for administering the new HRAs that come with consumer-driven health plans.

But if one looks a bit closer at how most HRAs are designed–high deductibles and percentage coinsurance–theres a slight problem with the IRS ruling.

Why? Because the IRS said card transactions that match flat co-pays, not coinsurance, can pass through without review. So what about the consumer whos paying for services with the card while meeting the HRA deductible or paying varying amounts of coinsurance after the deductible is met?

Even with flat prescription drug co-pays, there are times when a generic costs less than the co-pay. What happens then? Under the new ruling, those transactions may need further review, which means adding paper back into the system and diminishing new-found efficiencies.

One card company has come up with an alternative: establishing direct links with health plans that match and substantiate medical claims data with each members debit card transactions electronically.

For example, lets say a plan member is balanced-billed by the provider and writes the stored-value card number on the bill. The provider sends the bill to the plan, which adjudicates the claim and sends it to the card provider with the claims data. That data automatically is matched to the card transaction, so the TPA or employer avoids having to send a letter to the member to substantiate the encounter.

Going forward, it becomes apparent that a card providers electronic data connections are a vital part of the equation. One must also look at its experience in employee benefits, health insurance, claims and compliance standards to be sure that card transactions will be properly substantiated electronically, with optimal efficiency. This is even truer in the world of HRAs, which are employer-funded, than for FSAs, which are employee-funded.

Now that the IRS has established the ground rules for stored-value and debit cards, employers and administrators can spend more time comparing card providers capabilities, making it easier to find the right ones to suit their particular needs.

Best of all, the IRS ruling represents a continuation of the federal governments increasing support for electronic technologies that make employee benefits administration more efficient and more convenient.

is senior vice president of marketing and sales at Evolution Benefits Inc., Avon, Conn., which has developed a stored-value card known as the Benny Card.


Reproduced from National Underwriter Life & Health/Financial Services Edition, September 1, 2003. Copyright 2003 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.



NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.