Thomas M. Conway
Chairman

Emily M. Newport

Executive Director

Submitted Electronically via E-OHPSCA1251.EBSA@dol.gov

The Honorable Phyllis Borzi
Assistant Secretary
Employee Benefits Security
Administration

U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Room S-2524

Washington, DC 20210

Re: RIN 1210-AB42
Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance
Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Dear Ms. Borzi:

The Steelworkers Health and Welfare Fund (the “Fund”) is providing these
comments on the interim final regulations implementing the grandfather requirements
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Affordable Care Act”) published
by the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services on June 17,
2010 (the “Interim Final Rules”).

The Fund is a multiemployer health and welfare fund that provides benefits to
over 43,000 participants, including collectively bargained employees of more than 300
participating employers. A number of groups participate in the Fund only with respect
to retirees. Each participating group has its own schedule of benefits and is issued its
own summary plan description; most participate on a fully insured basis and are
separately experience-rated.

The Preamble to the Interim Final Rules provides that “the exceptions of ERISA
section 732 and Code section 9831 for very small plans and certain retiree-only health
plans, and for excepted benefits, remain in effect and thus, ERISA section 715 and
Code section 9815, as added by the Affordable Care Act, do not apply to such plans or
excepted benefits.” The Interim Final Rules, however, do not provide any guidance as
to what constitutes a "plan" for purposes of the retiree-only plan exception.

We are writing to you to express our strong concern that the regulations be
clarified to ensure that retiree-only benefit programs like those provided under the
Fund, which provide benefits to retirees under a separate schedule of benefits, are
within the retiree-only plan exception. Failure to make this interpretation clear, or
any contrary interpretation, will significantly increase the cost of the benefits under

STEELWORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND
Five Gateway Center, 7th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 * 412-562-2279 * 888-831-3863 + 412-562-2276 (Fax) * www.uswlund.org

onsen



August 16, 2010
Page 2

the mandated coverage and eligibility rules of the Affordable Care Act, a result that is
manifestly not in accord with the Congressional intent.

Most of the employers that contribute to the Fund on behalf of their retirees
already require retirees to pay a portion of the premium cost, and that portion would
increase if the cost of the benefits were to increase as a result of these retiree-only
programs becoming subject to mandated benefit requirements, making the benefits
unaffordable for many retirees. Increased benefit costs would also encourage those
employers that do not currently require a co-premium payment from retirees to
implement such a requirement. In addition, some of the retiree groups currently
participating in the Fund - for example, groups where the sponsoring employer has
gone out of business — have only a fixed dollar amount dedicated to retiree benefits
and no source of additional funding. In many cases, the dollar amount was
determined based on actuarial projections of how much money would be needed to
fund specific benefits for a group of retirees for the rest of their lifetimes. The cost
associated with providing additional mandated benefits would mean that the money
set aside for such a particular group would run out earlier than originally anticipated,
leaving the retirees with no coverage.

In short, imposition of the cost of complying with the mandated coverage and
eligibility rules of the Affordable Care Act on these retiree-only programs would result
in loss of coverage for many retirees, rather than expanded coverage. While some
employers will simply leave the Fund in hopes that by doing so they may provide less
costly, mandate-free benefits to retirees under a stand-alone plan, others will cease
providing coverage altogether, given the relatively higher administrative cost they
would have to assume by using a vehicle other than the Fund. And many of the
sponsoring employers would be unable to obtain comparable coverage for the smaller
groups of retirees on the same favorable terms that the Fund has been able to provide,
given its size.

For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully urge EBSA to clarify the interim
tule by including in the final rule an express exception to the mandates of the
Affordable Care Act for benefits provided through retiree-only benefit schedules.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Emily M. Newport
Executive Director