Insurers Group Comments on Minimum Essential Coverage Regs

February 3, 2022

William Paul
Principal Deputy Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 7604
Washington, D.C. 20044

RE: Proposed Rule — “Information Reporting of Health Insurance Coverage and Other Issues”
IRS REG-109128-21 (RIN 1545-BQ11)

Dear Mr. Paul:

On behalf of AHIP, I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, “Information Reporting of Health Insurance Coverage and Other Issues” published December 6, 2021 in the Federal Register.

AHIP is the national association whose members provide health care coverage, services, and solutions to hundreds of millions of Americans every day. We are committed to making health care better and coverage more affordable and accessible for everyone. We believe that when people get covered and get and stay healthy, we all do better. The best way to do that is to expand on the market-based solutions and public-private partnerships that are proven successes.

Under the proposed rule, Treasury and IRS would provide an automatic extension of time for providers of minimum essential coverage to furnish individual statements (Forms 1095-B and 1095-C) and would provide an alternative method for furnishing Form 1095-B to most employees when the individual shared responsibility penalty amount is zero. We support finalizing the changes to existing regulations as proposed and thank Treasury and IRS for being responsive to past comments from stakeholders.

The automatic extension of thirty (30) calendar days for furnishing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, as applicable, is a common-sense modification to existing regulations that reflects the need on the part of reporting entities to have more time to ensure accurate forms are produced. Additionally, by providing the alternative method of furnishing Form 1095-B in conjunction with the extended deadline, a burden on providers of minimum essential coverage is relieved while giving taxpayers more readily accessible information.

In light of Treasury and IRS proposing to end good faith relief from reporting penalties, AHIP renews our recommendations from prior years on solicitation of Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs). IRS has previously tried to apply the solicitation rules under Code section 6724 to the section 6055 reporting environment. Rules implementing section 6724 are geared primarily to the Form 1099 series reporting. There are many differences in the types of information and the reporting parameters between Form 1099 and Form 1095. We urge IRS to propose separate rules under section 6055 regulations to address solicitation for Form 1095 reporting.

In a future regulation on TIN solicitation under section 6055, we recommend:

• The first solicitation period for a TIN be consistent with the period required for other tax information returns under 26 CFR 301.6724-1. Currently, if the initial solicitation does not result in receipt of a TIN, the filer must make the first annual TIN solicitation within 75 days of the date on which the initial solicitation was made, which presents an administrative burden for many entities.

• Reduce the required frequency of solicitation efforts for Social Security numbers from three to two (one initial and one follow up), to reduce administrative cost and burden as well as consumer abrasion.

• Eliminate the need for collecting the SSN of spouses and dependents as it adds unnecessary implementation costs and poses additional privacy risks.

• Address solicitation requirements for erroneous TINs.

• Eliminate the requirement to attach a copy of Form W-9 to mailed annual solicitations.

In addition to the changes for furnishing Form 1095-B to individuals, we urge IRS to also consider making changes to www.irs.gov and any printed publications that discuss Form 1095-B in order to avoid confusion among taxpayers and reporting entities. The current website for IRS contains scattered references that imply the individual shared responsibility penalty remains in effect or that Form 1095-B is necessary for completing an individual federal income tax return. Taxpayers who look to FAQs on irs.gov may be confused by conflicting information. By prominently stating on pages within irs.gov that the mandate penalty is zero dollars and Form 1095-B is not required to complete a federal tax return, IRS, health insurance issuers, employers, and tax professionals alike may see reductions in questions about the form and avoid taxpayer confusion.

Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations and for the proposed regulations that should help reduce administrative burdens and provide documents in a more accessible manner to taxpayers.

Sincerely,

Adam Beck
Vice President, Employer Health Policy & Initiatives
America's Health Insurance Plans
Washington, D.C.