HSAs Shrouded in Misconceptions

A new study by Fidelity Investments suggests a large number of people don’t know how HSAs work or how it can play a role in retirement planning.

As America’s health insurance industry struggles through a state of uncertainty and Americans face rising health care costs, employers are turning to various strategies to help employees cover medical expenses.

One increasingly popular option is the health savings account (HSA), available to employees with high deductible health plans (HDHP). These products help people save and invest for current and future medical expenses.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

However, new research by Fidelity Investments suggests many Americans are unaware of the various benefits HSAs can offer. According to the firm’s study “Making the Most of Your HSA,” only three out of ten people surveyed are aware that HSAs are not governed by a “use it or lose it” policy, which applies to flexible spending accounts (FSA).

Eric Dowley, senior vice president, HSA Product Management, Fidelity Investments, tells PLANSPONSOR that several people the firm surveyed are hesitant to enroll in an HSA because they believe their money is limited as it in an FSA.

However, there are plenty of steps industry stakeholders can take to encourage HSA use.

“As an industry, we have an opportunity to give people a better understanding what HSAs are and how they work,” he says. 

The money in HSAs rolls over each year and any investments continue to grow even past retirement as there are no required distributions at any age. Moreover, they offer a triple-tax advantage: contributions are made pre-tax, the money grows tax free, and qualified withdrawals aren’t taxed.

NEXT: Investing HSAs

These advantages are part of the reason why HSAs are often promoted as retirement-conscious vehicles, but Dowley says several employees are unaware that money in these accounts can be invested.

“Fifty three percent of people weren’t really aware of how it would function as they think about retirement,” explains Dowley. “We try to help people with HSAs understand that they will have serious health expenses in retirement and that they do have a vehicle to plan for them now and save for them in a tax advantaged way.”

Employers can stand to gain from better communicating these benefits to employees while also helping them determine how much of their contributions they need to set as cash and how much of it they can invest, he says.

According to Fidelity’s report, the average balance of HSA holders who hold 100% of their contributions in cash is $2,500. The average balance for those who include other investments is $14,000.

But like choosing a health care plan, or deciding how to invest retirement savings, choosing investments and determining how much to contribute can be challenging. Fidelity suggests walking employees through the process in a few steps. The amount is ultimately determined by setting aside enough in cash to cover expected health expenses in a given year and investing the rest. This question can be answered by factoring in determined expenses, deductibles, and maximum out-of-pocket costs.  Plan sponsors and their providers can play key roles in helping employees better digest these often complex concepts.

“The more employers communicate this, the more willingness they have to talk to employees about what an HSA is in simple terms and how it can work for them, and the more demystification you can bring to the health care industry, the better,” says Dowley.

Continued guidance is also important.“Make sure that people have the confidence to set the right level of what they need in cash and what they need invested,” he says. “The last thing you want is to get someone to have exposure to the market when they need cash near term. Supporting that conversation and thinking is important,” says Dowley.

Today, plan sponsors have a variety of options to choose from when it comes to HSAs. Dowell recommends keeping a close eye on fee structures and business models. “Looking at what the underlining expenses of getting invested is important. That’s something that gets a lot of scrutiny in the 401(k) space, but I think it gets less visibility in the HSA space. As employers who are picking administrators or companies to help their people with HSAs, they need to understand what the underlining cost structure is of an investing account or the investments themselves.”

Fidelity Investment’s full report can be found at Fidelity.com.

DB Plan Sponsors Missing Opportunities to Reduce PBGC Premiums

A report contends that not optimizing their contribution recording and timing caused DB plan sponsors to overpay PBGC premiums.

Defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors paid $145 million in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums in 2015 alone that could have been avoided, according to a paper from October Three.

The report contends that not optimizing their contribution recording and timing caused plan sponsors to overpay PBGC premiums.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

“Minimizing PBGC premiums depends on plans’ maximizing the use of ‘grace period’ contributions—amounts contributed to a plan after the end of the plan year but still attributable to that plan year,” the report says. “Failure to adopt best practices around quarterly contribution requirements and applying funding balance has caused plan sponsors to overpay PBGC premiums due to not getting full credit for grace period contributions. In many cases, all or part of contributions made to satisfy quarterly contribution requirements could have been characterized as grace period contributions but weren’t. So, plans often report lower asset values than they could have and, as a result, pay higher premiums than they need to.”

Over the six years analyzed by October Three, DB plan sponsors have missed out on more than $700 million in savings. As an example, October Three’s review uncovered a plan ($330 million in assets, 8,300 participants) that owed a variable premium of $2.9 million during 2015, but could have reduced this premium by $685,000 simply by recording grace period contributions differently. “That is, an action that would only take the plan’s actuary minutes to complete, cost this sponsor almost $700,000!” the paper says. October Three notes that the plan paid actuarial fees from the trust during 2015 of $160,000.

October three calls these missed opportunities “recording errors”—plans could have reduced premiums without changing anything they did except for paying attention to quarterly contribution and funding balance rules at the time.

NEXT: Accelerating contributions

In addition, October Three contends many DB plan sponsors could have substantially reduced PBGC premiums by modestly accelerating some budgeted contributions (by one to five months) and, again, paying attention to quarterly contribution and funding balance rules. “These ‘push back strategies’ require a modest change in approach from plan sponsors. Over a period of years, differences in contribution amounts due to modest acceleration are insignificant, but PBGC premium savings are not,” the report explains.

The report says potential premium reductions based on push back strategies are more widespread and more significant in terms of total dollars. October Three observed one plan ($4.1 billion in assets, 78,600 participants) that paid a 2015 variable premium of $31.4 million, but could have reduced this premium by almost $1.2 million just by applying best practices to contribution recording and timing.

While October Three says there is some evidence that DB plan sponsors are increasingly adopting best practices in recent years now that PBGC premiums have increased, still its analysis indicates that sponsors continue to overpay premiums by more than $100 million annually, with more than half of eligible plan sponsors overpaying in some fashion.

October Three notes that DB plan sponsors rely on the plan actuary to use best practices, and in these situations knowledge and ability to advise rests with the actuary. “Hence, any sponsor experiencing recording errors is likely not being told the opportunity exists by their actuary and, in turn, is missing an opportunity to reduce their PBGC premium,” the report states.

The report, “The PBGC Premium Burden,” may be downloaded from here.

«