Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
MA Health Care Reform Law
On April 12, 2006, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ('Commonwealth') enacted legislation requiring most state residents to carry health insurance either through their employers or individually. The goal of the legislation is to 'provide access to affordable, quality, accountable healthcare' to everyone in the state, while reducing the percentage of uninsured residents to as close to 0% as possible. The reform law maintains employer-sponsored health insurance as the primary source of coverage for Commonwealth residents. While beneficial to employees, employers are faced with new obligations and the financial burdens of providing health benefits to employees. Employers that fail to provide health insurance to their employees may be subject to a surcharge of $295 annually per employee plus additional penalties.
The new law imposes several obligations on employers, even if they are already offering health insurance coverage to their employees. The five most significant obligations are:
- Adopting and maintaining a compliant premium conversion plan;
- Demonstrating the employer's Fair Share Contribution;
- Filing Employer Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure ('Employer HIRD') Forms with the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy;
- Collecting Employee Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure ('Employee HIRD') Forms; and
- Providing Certificates of Creditable Coverage.
Adopting and Maintaining a Compliant Premium Conversion Plan
By July 1, 2007, all employers doing business in the Commonwealth were required to adopt and maintain a premium conversion (also known as a Code '125 or Cafeteria) plan that allows employees to pay their share of health care premiums with pre-tax dollars. Such premium conversion plans also must allow employees who obtain health insurance through the Commonwealth's newly created Health Insurance Connector Plan ('Connector') to pay their Connector Plan premiums with pre-tax contributions. Employers will be required to file a copy of their premium conversion plans with the Commonwealth when regulations are issued. In response to the new premium conversion plan obligations, covered employers will need to amend their '125 or Cafeteria plans to include the Connector Plan option or adopt a separate Connector Plan to comply with the new law.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?