Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        How Should Employers Handle Medical Loss Ratio Rebates?

        by Eric D. Altholz on July 31, 2012

        Many employers have now received rebates from insurance companies whose use of premium dollars to pay non-health benefit expenses exceed the limits imposed under the medical loss ratio (“MLR”) standards of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance carriers in the large group market (i.e., selling group health insurance policies to employers having at least 100 employees) must spend at least 85% of premium dollars on the payment of medical care claims and quality improvement activities. Carriers that fail to achieve that threshold (and therefore spend more than 15% of premium dollars on things other than paying health insurance claims and quality activities) must pay the rebate. That’s good news for employers and participants in employer-sponsored health plans. So with the deadline for rebate payments just a day away, we wanted to offer a brief refresher about how the U.S. Department of Labor thinks employers should handle MLR rebates.

        When you consider the proper disposition of MLR rebates, recall that the assets of an ERISA plan include amounts “that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer, or amounts that a participant has withheld from his wages by an employer” for contribution to the plan. (See DOL Regulations section 2510.3-102.) That rule applies to group health plans just as it applies to retirement plans. So the employee’s share of the monthly health insurance premium, almost universally paid with pre-tax dollars withheld from pay under a cafeteria plan, is considered an asset of the health plan. Although the assets of a group health plan need not be held in trust – the way the assets of a 401(k) plan must be – they still must be protected and dealt with by plan fiduciaries in a way that is consistent with the requirements of ERISA. That means, among other things, that if the plan (or the employer in its stead) receives a distribution with respect to plan assets, that distribution itself must be considered an asset of the plan. The DOL has dealt with this issue in the past, for example in the context of the demutualization of insurance companies.

        Consistent with those well-established concepts, the DOL issued Technical Release 2011-04 in order to provide explicit directions to employers regarding the handling of MLR rebates. The technical release confirms that MLR rebates should generally be treated, in whole or in part, as plan assets and should be dealt with accordingly by plan fiduciaries. The extent to which an MLR rebate must be considered a plan asset will turn primarily on who covered the cost of health insurance premiums. An employer may be entitled to retain all or a portion of the rebate depending upon the portion of the premium it paid. To aid plan fiduciaries in making this determination, the technical release offers the following guidelines:

        • If the entire cost of group health insurance coverage was paid by the employer, with no contributions made by participants, the employer is free to retain the entire rebate.
        • Conversely, if plan participants paid the entire cost of coverage then the full amount of the rebate will be attributable to participant contributions (i.e., plan assets) and would be allocated among them.
        • If participants and the employer shared in the cost of coverage, each would receive a portion of the rebate commensurate with the portions of the premium paid by them respectively. This could apply in the case where participant cost sharing is expressed as a percentage of the premium, as well as cases in which the employer pays a fixed dollar amount (e.g., the cost of single coverage) and the participants pay the balance for the coverage they select.

        The rules offered in Technical Release 2011-04 are simple enough to follow with respect to current plan participants. But to what extent must former participants share in any rebate? (After all, the rebate paid in the current year will be attributable to plan operations and premiums paid in the prior year.) In that case, the technical release allows an employer to determine whether the cost of distributing shares of a rebate to former participants would outweigh the benefit of the distribution. Specifically, if the cost of making distributions to former participants would equal or exceed the amount to be distributed, a plan fiduciary may properly decide to allocate the proceeds solely to current participants based on a fair and objective allocation method.

        Finally, the technical release considers the possibility that the cost of making actual distributions of rebate shares even to active participants may be prohibitively costly (or otherwise not a prudent use of plan assets). In that case, a fiduciary is permitted to apply the rebate to other permissible plan purposes, including the application of the rebate amounts in order to reduce future participant premium payments or to provide benefit enhancements.

        If you are fortunate enough to receive an MLR rebate, follow the road map provided by the DOL in Technical Release 2011-04 to make sure you handle the rebate correctly.

        Benefits Law Update

        Verrill’s Benefits Law Update blog delivers timely insights and practical guidance on the ever-evolving landscape of employee benefits and executive compensation. Our blog provides up-to-date analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including timely updates on developments in law affecting employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements.

        Key Contacts

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Press Releases

        Verrill Attorney Annabel Rodriguez Named Top Women of Law by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill attorney Annabel Rodriguez has been recognized as a Top Women of Law by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, and will be...
        Blog

        What Employee Benefits Lawyers Do (and How to Make the Best Use of Us)

        What do employee benefits lawyers do all day and how can clients make the best use of them? This post offers an overview of the kinds of things...
        Media Mentions

        Bloomberg Law Quotes Robert Keach on Expanded Access to Small Business Reorganization

        Verrill attorney Bob Keach was recently featured in Bloomberg Law, discussing legislation that would raise debt limits for bankruptcy relief and...
        Blog

        Phil Bartlett to Step Down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission

        On September 15, 2026, Governor Janet Mills announced that Phil Bartlett will step down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC)...
        Published Works

        Jay McCormack and Michael Fee Co-Author AHLA Article on Skin Substitute Enforcement Trends

        Verrill Partners Jay McCormack and Michael Fee co-authored an article for the American Health Law Association's Fraud and Abuse Practice Group...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Health Care & Life Sciences Attorney Elpida Velmahos

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to announce that Elpida Velmahos has joined the firm’s Health Care & Life Sciences Group as an...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Litigation & Trial Attorney Emma Pooler

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill is pleased to announce that Emma Pooler has joined the firm’s Litigation & Trial Group as an Associate, resident in...
        Published Works

        Four Verrill Attorneys Co-Author Massachusetts Trends and Developments Chapter for Chambers and Partners Child Relocation 2026 Guide

        Verrill attorneys Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff, and Mariah G. Tappan co-authored the “Trends and Developments” chapter...
        Blog

        A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

        In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Verrill Secures SJC Victory for Boston Legacy FC in White Stadium Litigation

        Verrill has secured a significant appellate victory for Boston Legacy FC in the litigation challenging the redevelopment of White Stadium in...
        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses First Brands Chapter 11 Case in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the rejection of First Brands Group's Chapter 11 plan and the...