The OneAmerica revenue accounts allow advisers to move from
commission-based compensation to a fee-based structure.
As the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary
rule undergoes its first days of implementation, the retirement and
financial services industry is pushing efforts to increase transparency around
fees and potential conflicts of interest. In response, OneAmerica is rolling
out what it calls adviser-friendly “revenue accounts.”
Created at the plan level, these accounts can be used to pay an
adviser’s fee without the need for deductions from individual participant accounts. Commission
amounts are credited to the plan’s revenue account under the OneAmerica
recordkeeping system before being withdrawn and paid to the adviser as
a fee.
“By doing so, we can pay that same amount to an adviser as a
fee rather than a commission,” Terry Burns, assistant vice president of products and investments for OneAmerica Retirement Services, tells PLANADVISER. The arrangement is less conflicted, the firm argues, because the fee is agreed to in advance and will not vary depending on the specific product recommendations made.
Plans of any size will have access to these accounts and
there is no plan minimum.
“This is a new and welcomed option for group annuity
investments, because it makes retirement preparation easier for advisers and
sponsors,” Burns argues. “We believe revenue accounts will help our distribution partners
by providing a fee-based compensation versus a commission for the great work
they do, particularly on behalf of the small and mid-size plan market, where
plan sponsors often need help in their efforts to ensure their participants can
retire comfortably.”
He adds that the firm “wants to help advisers who want to switch from commission
to fees and still provide assistance to those smaller plans, so they can help
their participants retire appropriately.”
OneAmerica’s latest move comes ahead of its expansion of its
group annuity
platform, which includes zero revenue-sharing funds.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
Since the new Congress began in January, there have been more than 20 bills proposed that impact consumer-driven health plans, and more specifically HSAs.
During a recent conversation with PLANADVISER, Chad Wilkins,
president of HSA Bank, and Kevin Robertson, senior vice president, outlined
their expectations for health care reform and other hot-button items on the
policy agenda in Washington.
According to the pair, while much of the media attention
around healthcare reform has centered on the more politically charged
components of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—coverage mandates, subsidies,
penalties, preexisting conditions coverage requirements, etc.—less attention
has been paid to the GOP
healthcare proposals regarding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and
consumer-directed health (CDH) plans.
“Prior to the election, HSAs played an important and
prominent role in the U.S. healthcare landscape and in legislative efforts of
the last several Congresses,” Wilkins observes. “Driven by their popularity
with employers and employees as a cost reduction device and powerful healthcare
spending tool, HSAs have emerged as one of the fastest growing elements in
health plan design today.”
Numerous bills impacting HSA regulation and expansion ideas
have been introduced in the past, the pair explain. However, this is the “first
time we’ve seen a clear picture of the Republicans’ vision for HSAs and CDH
plans.”
As passed by the House, the GOP health care proposal has six
specific impacts on HSAs and CDH plans, most of which will take effect at the
beginning of 2018. These include an increase in HSA contribution limits to the
high deductible health plan (HDHP) out-of-pocket maximum; repeal of the ACA
contribution limit on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs); permission for spouses
to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA; repeal of the prescription
requirement for over-the-counter medications as qualified medical expense distributions
from HSAs, FSAs, and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs); lessening of the
penalty for non-qualified HSA distributions made prior to age 65 from 20% to
10%; and finally, permission for qualified distributions to reimburse medical
expenses incurred within 60 days of HDHP coverage but before HSA account is
established.
Robertson says these changes are collectively “substantial”
and “designed to simplify how individuals are able to save with an HSA or CDH
plan. The changes “expand the ability to contribute to these tax-advantaged
programs,” Wilkins agrees.
NEXT: How significant a change?
The HSA Bank executives suggested each of these changes,
which are somewhat minor considered individually, collectively could prove to
be very significant for retirees and could dramatically increase the
attractiveness of HSAs.
For example on the point of reducing the tax penalty for
unqualified non-medical withdrawals from 20% to 10%, Wilkins and Robertson
suggest the larger penalty amount has prevented some people from fully
embracing HSAs.
“Should someone need to access their HSA funds for a
non-medical emergency, the 20% penalty appears confiscatory,” Robertson says.
“The American Health Care Act reduces the 20% penalty, which was actually set
as part of the ACA, back to the original 10% it had always been. The end result
makes HSAs more attractive since the fear of a 20% penalty may have been a
detractor in individuals using HSAs as a savings account.”
Both HSA experts are also strongly in favor of the spousal
contribution provisions: “The most significant obstacle to maximizing spousal
contributions has been the aggravation of having to open a second account,”
Wilkins explains. “This change will make it easier for seniors to maximize
their savings for retirement years, both in terms of lower administration
costs, and simplification of the contribution process.”
On the question of how likely it is for the American Health
Care Act to actually become law, the executives noted that the bill is
currently the subject of no small amount of debate in the Senate, “where it
will likely see changes, especially with regard to some of the more politically
charged provisions, such as subsidies and tax credits.”
Because of the Senate structure and the narrow majority the
Republicans hold, they may attempt to use the budget reconciliation process to
pass the bill, the pair speculates. Practically speaking, reconciliation
matters only require 51 votes to pass, and the approach prevents the opposition
from filibustering the Senate.
NEXT: Multiple proposals would impact HSAs
“While there are significant limitations to the types of
legislation that can be passed using this process, the bottom line is that the
Democrats may be unable to prevent the bill in reconciliation,” Wilkins says.
“Provisions considered under reconciliation are essentially limited to items
with budgetary impacts, and even then, are held to certain restrictions by the
Byrd Rule. This rule sets forth specific provisions that must be met for any
changes to be considered as a part of reconciliation; meaning that the types of
changes in this health care bill are heavily influenced by what can be passed
in reconciliation. Any major policy changes or more significant bills would
require a 60-vote measure in the Senate. In order to get these more significant
changes passed, the GOP will have to find eight Democratic senators to vote in
support of the bill—not an easy task.”
On HSA Bank’s analysis, beyond reconciliation, there are
“other obstacles that have to be navigated such as avoiding a conference
committee.” Going to conference occurs when there are discrepancies between
bills passed in the House and the Senate, and if this occurs, both bodies must
take an up or down vote on the final, compromise version.
“While this is the first of other GOP health care changes to
come in the next few years, it may be the only chance to pass legislation
repealing ACA in 2017, and the final bill that gets passed will be heavily
influenced by the mechanics of the political process,” Robertson adds.
The executives go on to observe that, since the new Congress
began in January, there have been more than 20 bills proposed that impact CDHPs,
and more specifically HSAs.
“These proposals range from small procedural or regulatory
tweaks to full decoupling of HSAs from the underlying HDHP coverage and rolling
out HSAs to all Americans,” Robertson and Wilkins state. “The most significant
of these bills is the Health Savings Act of 2017 (S. 403, H.R.1175), introduced
in February 2017 by Senator Hatch (R-Utah) and Representative Paulsen (R-Minnessota).
This bill was the reintroduction of legislation from past Congresses, and has
directly resulted in many of the favorable changes regarding health accounts
(HSAs, FSAs, HRAs) over the last few years. In fact, most of the changes [we
have discussed] are provisions taken directly from the Hatch/Paulsen Bill.”