The Affordable Care Act: 10 Reminders for Minnesota Family Law Litigants

Transcription

1 The Affordable Care Act: 10 Reminders for Minnesota Family Law Litigants TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Basic information about the Affordable Care Act you need to know 4 a. Everyone must have Health Care Coverage in Place b. Shared Responsibility c. Individual Shared Responsibility Payment d. The parent who claims the child on his or her taxes must ensure the child is covered e. MNsure is not a form of health care coverage f. Health care coverage must meet standards to qualify as sufficient under the Affordable Care Act g. Parents living in Minnesota can provide health care coverage that meet the MEC and EHB standards in a variety of ways h. There is help paying for coverage i. There are tax penalties 2. There has been a paradigm shift at the National level that is trickling down 6 a. A change of mindset b. New link between tax dependency exemption and responsibility to ensure health care coverage c. Possible shift toward custodial parent as primary health insurance provider d. Possible impact of rising out- of- pocket costs e. Possible need to align affordability test f. Is Public Coverage good enough? 3. Minnesota Law - Medical Support Overview 7 a. What is medical support? b. What is health care coverage? c. What is a health plan? d. What is public coverage? e. What is appropriate health care coverage?

2 f. What must medical support include? g. How should the court order medical support? 4. Minnesota Law & The Affordable Care Act Compared: Apples and Oranges? 9 a. ACA vs. Minnesota Law b. Coverage c. Enforcement d. Full time employment e. Household composition f. Child g. Cost 5. There are issues specific to Child Support (IV- D) cases of which you should be aware 13 a. MinnesotaCare is no longer public assistance for the purpose of child support b. Not all forms of financial assistance require a IV- D Referral c. No interface d. The MinnesotaCare sliding fee scale is gone e. The IRS Enforces the Affordable Care Act, Not the States or Counties 6. The tax dependency exemption issue is more complicated under the Affordable Care Act 14 a. Tax dependency responsibility analysis b. Rebuttable presumption c. Alternating the tax exemption between parties d. Involvement by counties e. Did you know? 7. Modifications of Existing Decrees or Orders as a result of the Affordable Care Act 15 a. Modifications by agreement b. Court modifications c. The modification statute appears to allow periodic review of medical support terms 8. Practitioners may wish to revisit your templates and standard language 16 a. Provisions regarding responsibility for maintaining dependent health insurance b. Provisions regarding the tax dependency exemption c. Provisions relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures d. Provisions relating to the execution of documents to effectuate terms 2

3 9. The Role of Public and Private Attorneys under the Affordable Care Act 17 a. Public Attorneys (County s Role) b. Private Attorneys 10. Stay tuned to developments related to the Affordable Care Act 19 a. Federal Resources b. Minnesota Resources c. Other Resources d Legislation (as of March 2, 2015) 3

4 The Affordable Care Act: 10 Reminders for Minnesota Family Law Litigants 1. Basic information about the Affordable Care Act you need to know. a. Everyone must have Health Care Coverage in Place - Every person must have health care coverage in place, subject to an IRS tax penalty for failure to do so, unless they meet an exemption. Exemptions must be filed with tax documents on IRS Form b. Shared Responsibility - The Affordable Care Act introduces the concept of a shared responsibility of individuals, employers, and the government to ensure that all people, including children, have health care coverage in place. c. Individual Shared Responsibility Payment - For any month an individual does not have health care coverage in place for the individual or child, and the individual or child do not qualify for an exemption, the individual owes the IRS a shared responsibility payment. i. To calculate the shared responsibility payment, individuals must know their household income and tax return filing threshold. ii. The amount of the shared responsibility payment for each uninsured adult and child is prorated for only the months during which health care coverage was not in place at the following rate: The higher of 1% of annual household income or $95 for adults and $47.50 for children The higher of 2% of annual household income or $325 for adults and $ for children The higher of 2.5% of annual household income or $695 for adults and $ for children. d. The parent who claims the child on his or her taxes must ensure the child is covered - This parent is required to ensure that the child has health care coverage in place regardless of which parent is court ordered to carry the coverage or who, in reality, covers the child. i. If the child is not covered, the parent is subject to an IRS tax penalty, unless they have an exemption or paid the shared responsibility payment for the months in which no coverage was in place. 4

5 ii. A child support hardship exemption is available for the parent who claims the child but the other parent is court ordered to carry the health care coverage and fails to do so. 1. To qualify for the exemption, the parent who claims the child must first apply for public coverage (Medical Assistance) through the health care exchange and be denied. e. MNsure is not a form of health care coverage - MNsure is the portal for health care coverage options available to people based on their income and circumstances. Options include private coverage, private coverage with subsidies, and public coverage. f. Health care coverage must meet standards to qualify as sufficient under the Affordable Care Act - i. Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) is the type of coverage an individual needs to have to meet the individual responsibility requirement. ii. Health care coverage must be comprehensive coverage that must include certain essential health benefits (EHB). g. Parents living in Minnesota can provide health care coverage that meet the MEC and EHB standards in a variety of ways - i. Employer or union sponsored coverage - including COBRA, Retiree, Self- and Insured and military TRICARE. ii. Healthcare Exchange - MNsure is Minnesota s healthcare exchange. iii. Government programs - in Minnesota, the application for most of these programs is through MNsure. iv. Directly through a private insurance provider. h. There is help paying for coverage - i. Expanded eligibility for public assistance medical programs through Medicaid. ii. Premium tax credits (which can also be advanced and adjusted later if not the right amount) for the purchase of private plans. iii. Cost sharing subsidies to reduce costs paid by the insured (but are only available for Silver level plans). i. There are tax penalties - Individuals and parents of children who do not have health care coverage in place for themselves or their children, who do not meet an exemption, and who have not paid their shared responsibility payment, are subject to tax penalties: 5

6 i. Tax penalties are applied per uninsured person in the tax household. ii. Tax penalties are prorated per month during which health care coverage was not in place. iii. Rates of Tax Penalties are the same as the shared responsibility payments listed under 1.c.i. above. 2. There has been a paradigm shift at the National level that is trickling down. a. A change of mindset Questions to consider: i. Is there a shift that employer or union based coverage may not be the best coverage? ii. Is there a shift towards a contribution to medical costs versus providing coverage? iii. Is there a new hierarchy of coverage? iv. Should government child support programs enforce medical support? v. What should court orders include as the obligation? b. New link between tax dependency exemption and responsibility to ensure health care coverage Does this link change how parents and courts should be handling both the tax dependency exemption and the responsibility to provide health care coverage for children of unmarried or divorced parents? c. Possible shift toward custodial parent as primary health insurance provider - i. Employers cutting hours to avoid providing health care coverage; ii. Increase in Medicaid eligibility; iii. For IV- D caseloads Nationally: 1. Noncustodial parent access to affordable insurance is shrinking: estimated only 10-25% of IV- D cases include noncustodial parents with access to affordable insurance. 2. Estimated 90% of custodial parents children in IV- D cases are eligible for government- subsidized insurance. d. Possible impact of rising out- of- pocket costs Different medal plans4 have different costs (premium costs and out- of- pocket health care costs). e. Possible need to align affordability test - Federal child support regulations define affordability as 5% of the obligor s gross income or other such formula as determined by state law. The Affordable Care Act looks at affordability as 8% of the gross income of the tax household as the affordability measure. 6

7 f. Is Public Coverage good enough? - In the past, the goal was to get the child covered by one of the parents employer or union sponsored coverages or a private plan and away from public coverage. Minnesota s Medical Support Statutes are set up that way. There is a trend towards public coverage as the best coverage for some families and that should be left well enough alone. 3. Minnesota Law - Medical Support Overview - There are differences or tensions between current state law and the Affordable Care Act. This is specifically addressed in more detail in Section 4 below. A review of current state law offers helpful context for understanding the differences or tensions. Minnesota s medical support law is found primarily at Minnesota Statutes 518A.41. i. What is medical support? Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 1(d), medical support is providing health care coverage, contributing to the cost of health care coverage, contributing to the cost of public coverage, or contributing to the cost of unreimbursed and uninsured medical expenses. It also includes the contribution toward the actual health care costs based on a pro rata share under Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 4(f)(1). a. What is health care coverage? Health care coverage is medical, dental, or other health care benefits provided by one or more health plans. Health care coverage does not include any form of public coverage according to Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 1(a). b. What is a health plan? Pursuant to Minn. Stat , subd. 1(c), a health plan is a plan other than any form of public coverage that provides medical, dental, or other health care benefits, and is provided on an individual or group basis, provided by an employer or union, purchased in the private market, or available to a person eligible to carry insurance for a joint child, including a party s spouse or parent. Think of a health plan as private coverage. c. What is public coverage? Public coverage according to Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 1(f), means benefits provided by medical assistance under Chapter 256B. d. What is appropriate health care coverage? a. The court must consider the following factors to determine whether a parent has appropriate health care coverage pursuant to Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 3: 7

8 i. Comprehensiveness - Presumption of comprehensiveness if it includes medical and hospital coverage and provides for preventive, emergency, acute, and chronic care. If both parents have comprehensive health care coverage available, the court must determine which parent'ʹs coverage is more comprehensive by considering what other bells and whistles are available. ii. Accessibility - Dependent health care coverage is accessible if the covered joint child can obtain services from a health plan provider with reasonable effort by the parent with whom the joint child resides. iii. The joint child s special needs, if any. iv. Affordability - Dependent health care coverage is affordable if it is reasonable in cost. b. If both parents have health care coverage available for a joint child that is comparable considering all of the above, the least costly health care coverage is presumed to be the most appropriate health care coverage for the joint child. e. What must medical support include? Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 2(b)(2)(i)- (iii) provides that every order addressing support must state: a. If a child is not presently enrolled in health care coverage, whether appropriate health care coverage is available. b. If appropriate health care coverage is available, the order must also include the parents responsibilities for carrying health care coverage; and the cost of premiums and how the cost is allocated between the parents; and the circumstances, if any, under which an obligation to provide health care coverage will shift from one parent to the other. c. If appropriate health care coverage is not available, whether a contribution for medical support is required, and how unreimbursed and uninsured medical expenses will be allocated. The order must also provide the names and last known addresses of both parents and the joint children and order the parents to provide their social security numbers to the health plan administrator. f. How should the court order medical support? 8

9 a. Current Minnesota law found generally at Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 4 prefers that one parent provide coverage in certain situations; it s a hierarchy of coverage. i. If a joint child is presently enrolled, that coverage must continue, unless the parties agree otherwise, or a party requests a change and the court determines that other health care coverage is more appropriate. ii. If a joint child is not presently enrolled, the court must determine if one or both parents have appropriate coverage. iii. If only one parent has appropriate health care coverage, the court must order that parent to provide the coverage. iv. If both parents have appropriate health care coverage, the court must order the parent with whom the child resides to carry the coverage, unless one of the exceptions in Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 4(d)(1)- (3) applies. (Parent expresses a preference, contributing towards costs would be a hardship, or the parties agree otherwise.) v. If either of the exceptions in subdivision 4 (d) (1) or (2) applies, the court must determine which parent has the most appropriate coverage, and order that parent to provide the coverage. vi. If neither parent has appropriate coverage available, the court must order the parents to contribute toward actual health care costs on a pro rata basis, or if the child is receiving public coverage, order the parent with whom the child does not reside to contribute toward the actual cost of public coverage. The court may vii. order the parent with whom the child resides to apply for public coverage 4. Minnesota Law & The Affordable Care Act Compared: Apples and Oranges? a. ACA vs. Minnesota Law - While the ACA and current Minnesota child support statutes have some similar public policy objectives, those objectives are not identical and each law tries to achieve its objectives in different ways. ACA Minnesota Law Primary Support Obtain coverage, public Obtain private coverage as 9

10 Objective(s) coverage may be the best coverage a preference and contribution Enforcement Tax consequences (IRS) Court action (IV- D) Central Concept Tax household relationships Appropriateness of coverage (hierarchy of coverage) b. Coverage- i. The idea of coverage is central to both Minnesota child support statutes and the ACA. However, the term means different things in each law. The ACA definition of minimum essential coverage may or may not be consistent with "ʺappropriate"ʺ health care coverage under state law. ii. Under the ACA, an employer must provide minimum essential coverage of minimum value which is affordable. Some elements of minimum essential coverage include: 1. Preventative care benefits covered at 100%; 2. No annual or lifetime limits on essential health benefits; 3. No waiting periods longer than 90 days; 4. No pre- existing condition exclusions; 5. Full time employees (30 hours or more/week); 6. Children must be covered to the end of the calendar year in which they reach age 26; 7. Other miscellaneous mandates. iii. What counts as minimum essential coverage (MEC) under the ACA? 1. Employer- sponsored coverage, including: self- insured plans, COBRA coverage and retiree coverage; 2. Coverage purchased in the individual market, including a qualified health plan offered by the Health Insurance Marketplace; 3. Medicare Part A coverage & Medicare Advantage plans; 4. Most Medicaid coverage; 5. Children'ʹs Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage; 6. Certain types of veterans health coverage; 10

11 7. Most types of TRICARE coverage; and 8. Other coverage recognized by the Secretary of HHS as MEC. c. Enforcement - i. The IRS is the enforcement agency for the ACA. ii. The public authority is the enforcement agency for medical support in child support cases under the IV- D program. d. Full time employment - i. Currently, there is a difference between the ACA and Minnesota child support law regarding the meaning of full time employment. ii. Under the ACA, an employee is considered full time at employment of 30 hours or more per week. Minn. Stat. 518A.32, subd. 1 creates a rebuttable presumption that parents can be employed full time at 40 hours of work per week, with some recognized exceptions. e. Household composition - i. Minnesota Law: Household composition is not relevant in the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines. The income of an adult child or new spouse or significant other is not considered in a guidelines calculation. ii. ACA: Household composition is highly relevant in the Affordable Care Act. The composition of the household determines whose income applies towards eligibility. Household means people who are considered a unit for purposes of determining eligibility. Household may or may not include people who live together. Household size is necessary to convert income to a Federal Poverty Level standard. Household size is also especially important for Premium Tax Credits (which can be advanced) because every dollar change in income affects the expected premium contribution of the family and therefore the tax credit they will receive. f. Child i. Minnesota Law: Child support (including medical support) continues until a child turns 18, or 20 if still attending secondary school, with some limited exceptions Minn. Stat. 518A.26, subd. 5; see also Minn. Stat. 518A.39, subd. 5. ii. ACA: Parent can provide coverage through age 25 for a child. g. Cost 11

12 i. The cost of coverage is still a relevant consideration under both Minnesota law and the ACA. However, with the ACA different percentages are applied to different measures of income for different purposes. ii. The following chart summarizes some differences in determinations of costs between Minnesota Law and the ACA: Percentage Income Purpose Minnesota Law 5% Gross Income Order Coverage? ACA- Individual 8% Household Income Avoid Penalty? ACA- Large Employer 9.5% Household Income Employer Plan Affordable? iii. Under Minnesota law, as discussed in Section 3(g) above, the court may have to decide which coverage is more appropriate. The appropriateness of coverage depends on its comprehensiveness, accessibility, the child s special needs, and affordability. Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 3. iv. Dependent health care coverage is affordable if it is reasonable in cost based on the obligated party s gross income. Minn. Stat. 518A.41, subd. 3 (4). See footnote 2. v. Under the ACA, the question of affordability generally is framed differently. It is simply an exemption from the penalty for failing to comply with the mandate to ensure minimum essential coverage rather than an element of appropriateness. Note that the percentage is applied to household income, not the taxpayer s individual gross income as is the case in Minnesota law. vi. The above chart illustrates a third percentage for affordability : 1. Large employers with more than 50 employees are subject to an assessable payment if any full- time employee is certified to receive a premium tax credit AND the employer does not offer minimum essential coverage under an employer- sponsored plan OR the employer offers a plan that is unaffordable within the meaning of IRC 36 (B) (c) (2) (C) (i) (or which does not offer a specified level of value). See ACA, section 1513 (b). 12

13 2. Under the Internal Revenue Code, such coverage is affordable if it does not exceed 9.5% of the taxpayer s household income. IRC section 36 (B) (c) (2) (C) (i). 3. If the coverage is not affordable, the employee may participate in an exchange and may be eligible for a premium tax credit. The employer then would be subject to the assessable payment under section Note that the income to which the percentage is applied is household income. 5. There are issues specific to Child Support (IV- D) cases of which you should be aware. a. MinnesotaCare is no longer public assistance for the purpose of child support - It is still a public subsidized plan, but it is no longer available for the majority of children. Thus, MinnesotaCare is no longer a form of public assistance that requires a IV- D referral and assignment of medical support. b. Not all forms of financial assistance require a IV- D Referral - Premium tax credits (advanced too) and cost sharing subsidies are not forms of public assistance. As a result, they do not require a IV- D referral and assignment of medical support. c. No interface - There is still no interface between the MNsure computer system and the child support computer system (PRISM). As a result, cases deemed eligible for Medical Assistance that would normally require a referral to IV- D and assignment of medical support are not known to the State or County child support offices. i. DHS and the Counties agreed that there is too much risk associated with the manual exchange of information by paper. ii. For these cases, counties are not bringing actions to establish or modify child support based on the receipt of Medical Assistance because the status and updates are not known or verifiable. iii. Counties will request to reserve medical support for cases where Medical Assistance might be open but the county does not have verifiable information. iv. Counties will not request past medical support and reimbursement for any time in which support was reserved due to the lack of the interface. 13

14 d. The MinnesotaCare sliding fee scale is gone - It has been replaced by the MinnesotaCare Premium Table, and there is now a $50 cap per household member. e. The IRS Enforces the Affordable Care Act, Not the State or Counties - The IRS enforces the lack of coverage. The State and Counties enforce the lack of payments that one party is obligated to pay the other party or to the government. Counties are still enforcing medical support according to the Minnesota medical support laws, which may or may not be at odds with the Affordable Care Act. 6. The tax dependency exemption issue is more complicated under the Affordable Care Act. a. Tax Dependency Responsibility Analysis - Now that the responsibility to ensure that the child is covered is directly tied to which parent claims the child on his or her taxes, a more deliberate analysis must occur as to the tax dependency exemption. b. Rebuttable Presumption - Some states are enacting laws that affirmatively align the responsibility to ensure that the child is covered to the parent who has the tax dependency exemption. Some of these states are specifically making it a rebuttable presumption that this parent should be the custodial parent. Minnesota is not one of these states. c. Alternating the Exemption between Parties - Many dissolution or paternity orders have provisions wherein the tax dependency exemption alternates between parents, usually as a way to get the case settled. Sometimes there is not much analysis done as to this agreement. It makes the parties happy and perhaps amenable to settle a more controversial issue. i. Remember how difficult it might be for your client if he or she has the tax dependency exemption and the other parent is court ordered to provide health care coverage and fails to do so. The hardship exemption is not easy to obtain as it requires an application for public coverage. ii. It is unknown whether the courts will determine a monetary liability for a parent who should, but does not, provide coverage which results in the other parent owing a shared responsibility payment or getting an IRS tax penalty. 14

15 d. Involvement by Counties - Counties do not include a provision relating to the tax dependency exemption in pleadings or motions. Counties will not make a recommendation to the parties or the court as to which parent should be awarded the tax dependency exemption. Counties will alert the parties, attorneys, and the bench about the tax dependency being tied to requirements to ensure the child is covered. e. Did you know? i. Unless the custodial parent releases the tax dependency exemption on IRS Form 8332, the IRS code defaults the tax dependency exemption to the custodial parent. ii. Your client s tax household does not include someone he or she can, but does not, claim as a dependent if the dependent is properly claimed on another taxpayer'ʹs return or can be claimed by a taxpayer with higher priority under the tie- breaker rules. iii. The release of the exemption by the custodial parent to the noncustodial parent is found in 26 U.S.C. 152(e)(2). This release cannot be made conditional upon payment of the child support according to the instructions for Form 8332, which changed in iv. Child Support Magistrates have the jurisdiction to order an agreed upon designation of the tax dependency exemption, and can make a decision if the issue is contested. See Advisory Committee Comment to Minnesota General Rule of Practice Modifications of Existing Decrees or Orders as a result of the Affordable Care Act. a. Modifications by Agreement - Proactive, cooperative parents may wish to review their current decrees or orders relating to medical support and the allocation of tax dependency exemptions to ensure the best use of their collective financial resources based upon the concepts outlined above. Even the most cooperative parents should understand that, in order to qualify as a binding and enforceable support order, as defined in Minn. Stat. 518A.26, subd. 21, the modifications must be submitted to the court for approval. If the public authority is a party to the action or responsible for child support enforcement, any agreement reached must be approved and signed by the county attorney as to form and content. 15

16 b. Court Modifications - Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 518A.39, subd. 2(i), the enactment, amendment, or repeal of law does not constitute a substantial change in the circumstances for purposes of modifying a child support order. Therefore, parents should not seek court modification of their current decrees or orders based upon the mere existence of the Affordable Care Act and its policies. Appropriate basis for modification related to the Affordable Care Act include: i. A change in the availability of appropriate health care coverage or a substantial increase or decrease in health care coverage costs, which renders the current terms unreasonable and unfair. Minn. Stat. 518A.39, subd. 2(a)(6); and/or ii. Health care coverage ordered under Minn. Stat. 518A.41 is not available to the child for whom the order is established by the parent ordered to provide, creating a rebuttable presumption that the current support order is unreasonable and unfair. Minn. Stat. 518A.39, subd. 2(b)(3). c. The Modification Statute Appears to Allow Periodic Review of Medical Support Terms: The language of Minn. Stat. 518A.39, subd. 1, which provides the court with authority to from time to time, on motion of either of the parties modify the order respecting the amount of support money and the payment of it and may make an order respecting these matters, which it might have made in the original proceeding., may prove helpful for ACA- related issues that do not fit neatly within either of the statutory bases such as the allocation of tax dependency exemptions between the parties. 8. Practitioners may wish to revisit your templates and standard language. a. Provisions regarding responsibility for maintaining dependent health insurance i. Avoid language that contemplates only employer or union sponsored insurance; ii. Avoid language that automatically requires a party to obtain dependent coverage if no longer available to the other party; iii. Avoid conditional language (e.g., Father to provide coverage, and if father no longer has coverage available, and the child is on public coverage, pay $x dollars.) The more appropriate way to approach this is with a modification. 16

17 iv. Revisit language that requires the parents to evaluate the available insurance coverage from time to time. If this makes sense for the family, consider whether to include parameters on the frequency and manner by which to revisit the issue. b. Provisions regarding the tax dependency exemption i. Carefully consider the allocation of exemptions between the parties, especially provisions that alternate the exemption from year- to- year; ii. Revisit any language qualifying a parties right to claim the exemption, or allowing one party to purchase the exemption from the other if more advantageous, for potential confusion as to which parent must ensure MEC. c. Provisions relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures i. Consider whether to include a specific process to address coverage disputes as an alternative or pre- requisite to litigation. d. Provisions relating to the execution of documents to effectuate terms i. Consider whether to specifically require parents to cooperate in exchanging and documentation necessary to comply with the mandates of the ACA. 9. The Role of Public and Private Attorneys under the Affordable Care Act. a. Public Attorneys (County s Role) - i. Does the county'ʹs role with taxes change now that the IRS is the ACA enforcement agency? 1. The county'ʹs role has not changed very much. 2. The county is charged with obtaining and enforcing medical support for children pursuant to state law and under the auspices of the IV- D program. 3. The IRS tax penalty is a separate enforcement tool available to ensure compliance with the minimum standards of federal law. 4. The public authority will not address the child tax dependency exemption in its pleadings or motions. Note, though, that child support magistrates, who only hear IV- D cases, may address the issue of dependency exemptions. See Advisory Committee Comment to Minnesota General Rule of Practice

18 ii. Shared or alternated dependency exemptions - should the county object? 1. When parties want to share or alternate dependency exemptions or allow the noncustodial parent to claim the exemption when paid in full, the county should not object but alert the parties, attorneys, and the court of the tax penalty and hardship exemption. As between the parties, there may be good financial reasons for sharing the tax exemptions or for allowing a noncustodial parent to claim them when paid in full. 2. The county may be unaware of how the parties are marshalling their respective assets, and will play no active role in deciding how the apportionment of dependency exemptions is addressed. iii. Does the county collect the IRS form required by the ACA to prove whether or not the child is covered? 1. The county does not collect the IRS tax form from the parties. However, the county may be asked by a party to provide verification as to whether health care coverage is in place for the child. b. Private Attorneys - i. Do private family law attorneys need to become ACA experts? 1. No more than we have to be experts in ERISA, COBRA, etc. The private attorney should understand how the ACA impacts our cases and determine how best to represent the interests of each client, whether it is identifying potential problems, recommending the client obtain advice or information from another resource, or resolving medical support and tax dependency exemption issues through negotiation or litigation. 2. Use financial neutrals or other experts, as needed. 3. Online resources include those listed in the section below. ii. Allocation of dependency exemptions how do private attorneys assist the Child Support Magistrate or judicial officer in determining the issue? 18

19 1. For those who do not see this issue frequently, it may be necessary to educate the judiciary as to the potential problems associated with shared or alternated dependency exemptions. 2. Pending current legislation identifying factors for the court to consider, draw from case law, which generally requires the court to make findings justifying its allocation of tax dependency exemption. 10. Stay tuned to developments related to the Affordable Care Act a. Federal Resources: i. ii iii. official- resources. html iv. CHIP- Program- Information/By- State/mi nnesota.html b. Minnesota Resources: i. ii ( MNSURE) iii. reform/topics/exchange iv. c. Other Resources: i. reform (Kaiser Family Foundation) ii. reform.aspx (National Conference of State Legislators) d Legislation (as of March 2, 2015): i. Minnesota - HF 446/SF Income Tax Dependency Exemptions - Identifies factors for the court to consider in awarding income tax dependency exemptions in child support matters. ii. Minnesota - HF 850/SF DHS Budget Bill - Aligns some of Minnesota Law with the ACA, including: 1. Eliminating the assignment and designation of MinnesotaCare as public assistance in ; 2. Identifying the correct premium schedule for public coverage to use to calculate medical support after MinnesotaCare is no longer public assistance (section 256L); 19

20 iii. iv. 3. Change the definition of full time hours from 40 to 30 when imputing income; 4. Change the current imputation method of 150% of minimum wage to 100% of minimum wage in Minn. Stat. 518A.32; 5. Insert minimum essential coverage under the ACA to the definition of comprehensive medical coverage in Minn. Stat. 518A.41; 6. Clarify that tax subsidized and cost sharing plans are not public assistance programs requiring an assignment and referral to child support; 7. Allow for medical- only modifications so that the reality for the family is reflected in a court order to prevent medical support enforcement of the incorrect (not reality) court order provisions in Minn. Stat. 518A.39; and 8. Remove noncustodial parent obligation to reimburse for Medical Assistance when the noncustodial parent is receiving or qualifies for Medical Assistance Minnesota - HF 1252/SF Establishing Health Care Program for uninsured adults and children Federal - H.R Save American Workers Act Amends IRS Code to repeal the 30- hour threshold for classification as a full time employee for purposes of the ACA employer mandate to 40 hours. 20