A101. Starting in 2014, large employers (those with at least 50 FTEs) would be assessed a pay or play penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee in excess of 30 if at least one full-time employee obtains subsidized Exchange coverage.

A102. Starting in 2014, large employers would be assessed a play or pay penalty of $3,000 for each full-time employee receiving subsidized Exchange coverage with an aggregate limit of $2,000 times the total number of full-time employees.

A103. Starting in 2014, waiting periods beyond 90 days will no longer be permitted.

A104. No. The employer mandate would only apply to full-time employees (defined as scheduled to work at least 30 hours per week). There would be no penalty for not offering coverage to employees working less than 30 hours per week.

A105. Yes. Other than the permissible 90 day waiting period, there are no specific exemptions for temporary or seasonal workers who are working at least 30 hours per week.

A106. Yes, but you would then be subject to the $2,000 penalty on all full-time employees in all lines of business, including those lines of business where benefits are provided.

A107. No, but the individual mandate does apply.

A108. As an employer, your partnership could be subject to the free-rider surcharge with respect to your full-time employees. However, since partners are owners rather than employees, no penalty would be assessed for not providing coverage for them.

A109. No. Play or pay penalties are not deductible.

A110. It is unlikely that an employer could simply terminate medical coverage and pay the (lower) penalty without damaging its competitive standing for labor, because these benefits are a significant part of your total compensation package. Instead, you will need to re-evaluate your mix of compensation and benefits to maximize the return of each dollar spent.

A201. No. For the first three years (2014-2016), only individuals and small employers (100 or fewer employees) can obtain coverage through the Exchange. Starting in 2017, states may allow employers of any size to participate.

A202. Yes – regardless of their income.

A203. Individuals eligible for employer coverage are only eligible for Exchange subsidies if:

• The employee’s contribution for an employer-sponsored plan exceeds 9.5% of household income (e.g. the affordability test), and
• The employee’s household income is below 400% of the federal poverty level

A204. Each employee will need to make this decision on a case-by-case basis by comparing the coverage and costs they could get from your company versus the Exchange.

A205. Only if the Exchange coverage is offered through the employer (not before 2017 for large employers).

A206. No. You would have to provide certain employees tax-free “Free Choice” vouchers only under the following conditions:

• The employee’s household income is under 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and,
• The required contribution for employer-sponsored coverage is between 8% and 9.8% of the employee’s household income and,
• The employee is a full-time employee and,
• The employee opts out of your employer-sponsored coverage, and
• The employee purchases coverage through the Exchange

In combination, these conditions are pretty restrictive and, for most plan sponsors, would apply to very few of your employees. While this would undoubtedly add to your administrative burden, the determination of voucher eligibility will be performed by the Exchange.

A207. The amount of the voucher would be the net employer subsidy (gross costs minus employee contributions) that the employer would have paid for participants under the plan option where the employer pays the largest portion of the cost. This subsidy would also include the cost of dependent coverage if the employee purchases Family coverage from the Exchange. Under most plans, the value of this Free-Choice voucher is likely to be considerably more than the $3,000 free-rider surcharge that would apply when participant contributions are above the 9.5% threshold.

A301. The tax is effective in 2018.

A302. $10,200 for employees enrolled in self-only coverage and $27,500 for employees enrolling one or more dependents. These initial 2018 threshold amounts will be adjusted upwards if actual healthcare costs (based on the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan) increase faster than expected.

A303. Yes. There are higher limits for early retirees (age 55-64) and high-risk occupations (including telecommunications). Also, the indexing amount may be higher for employers that have an age/gender mix higher than the national average. Lastly, any employee participating in a multi-employer plan (regardless of actual coverage level elected) is treated as having family coverage and the $27,500 threshold would apply.

A304. The threshold limits will increase by CPI+1% in 2019 and just CPI in later years.

A305. The employer is responsible for calculating the total tax for each employee, allocating it to each benefit option and reporting the pro rata tax to each plan administrator or insurer.

A306. For HSA contributions, the employer is responsible for paying the tax. For all other coverages, the plan administrator (typically, your TPA or insurance carrier) would be responsible for paying the tax to the IRS. However, the carrier or TPA will almost certainly pass the cost of the tax back to the plan sponsor.

A307. The tax is on the value of all medical benefits, (both employer and employee contributions), as well as the value of executive physicals and onsite health clinics. It also includes most contributions to account-based plans (HSAs, FSAs, HRAs).

A308. The tax excludes disability and long term care plans, stand-alone dental and vision plans as well as limited-purpose FSAs. The tax would also exclude employee contributions to HSAs that are not made through salary reduction.

A309. Yes, but there are higher limits for pre-Medicare retirees. Employers may also be able to mitigate the impact of the tax by blending pre-Medicare retirees with Medicare eligible retirees.

A310. Yes, the Cadillac tax applies to not-for-profits, multi-employer plans and governmental plans as well.

A311. Yes, because the tax is computed separately by employer. For example, if the husband enrolls in family health coverage worth $20,000 under his employer’s plan and his wife enrolls in family health coverage worth $18,000 under another employer’s plan, the Cadillac tax would not apply to either plan even though their combined household coverage is worth more than each individual’s excludable amount.

A401. The primary changes address the so-called "donut hole." First, those individuals who hit the donut hole in 2010 will get a $250 payment to defray their out-of-pocket costs. Second, starting in 2011, drug manufacturers will have to provide a 50% discount on brand drugs in the donut hole for most Part D participants. Third, the donut hole itself will be gradually phased out through 2020. Finally, to pay for some of these new benefits, Part D premiums will become income-related and will increase for the same beneficiaries who pay increased Part B premiums.

A402. No. The 50% discount applies to only Medicare-sponsored Part D plans that have a donut hole for brand drugs. So, there is no corresponding discount for employers who are taking the RDS subsidy.

A403. No. The law explicitly provides that the 50% discount and improved Part D benefits are not to be reflected in the actuarial equivalence testing. So there should be no impact on your eligibility for RDS or the amount of RDS you can expect to collect (although these RDS payments will now become taxable).

A404. Starting in 2013, you will no longer be able to deduct RDS amounts from your taxable income. You can estimate the one-year (cash) impact by multiplying your annual RDS payment by your company’s marginal tax rate.

A405. Currently, as a tax-paying employer, the FAS106 liability on your books for retiree medical benefits may be partially offset by a FAS109 deferred tax asset, recognizing the tax benefits that would be available on future deductions for these costs. Your actuary should be currently providing you with a measure of the APBO (Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation) both with and without RDS. You can estimate the long-term (balance sheet) impact by multiplying the difference in these two amounts by your company’s marginal tax rate reflected in any deferred tax asset that is included in the balance sheet. The estimate may be a bit closer if you subtract out of that amount, the 2010, 2011 and 2012 projected RDS amounts shown on the most recent disclosure. Your actuary can give you an exact number measured as of March 2010.

It appears that the accountants are requiring the reduction in the deferred tax asset to be a one-time charge to earnings in the period that the legislation is signed. Thus, many employers had to take a one-time charge for this tax change in first quarter 2010.

A406. The economics are clearly shifting, and it would be prudent to re-evaluate alternatives. Employers can directly offer a Part D plan or can subsidize or supplement Part D plans that their retirees can buy in the marketplace. The Part D marketplace has become more robust since the initial introduction of Medicare drug benefits. With the improvements in the Medicare drug benefits, and the elimination of the tax benefits for RDS, this is now the time to review the benefit offerings to retirees.

A407. The legislation provides for reductions in the federal funding for Medicare Advantage plans. There is a potential for very significant increases in premiums for Medicare Advantage coverage starting in 2011. For some employers, this change could be so significant as to warrant FAS106 re-measurement for this year.

A408. It appears that those requirements will apply if the retirees are part of the same plan as active employees. Retiree coverage provided through a separate plan appears to be exempt from the new requirements. See Sections 5 and 7.

A501. For plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (e.g., 2011 for calendar-year plans), you may not impose a lifetime limit on the dollar value of essential health benefits for any participant.

A502. Yes.

A503. There is a delay in effective date for certain issues for insured collectively bargained plans. But the limited delay in effective data does not appear to apply to the lifetime limit rules. Thus, collectively bargained plans will have to eliminate lifetime limits for plans years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

A504. We presume that lifetime limits on these types of services will continue to be allowed.

A505. Yes. It appears that plans would be permitted to limit the number of days of coverage or visits per lifetime. However, it is unlikely that a plan could limit both the number of visits and the dollar amount per visit since combined, that would constitute a lifetime dollar limit.

A506. A plan may not impose annual limits on the dollar value of essential health benefits for any participant or beneficiary. Before 2014, a plan may impose a “restricted” annual limit on essential benefits. Guidance is required on what “restricted” limits will be allowed. The broader prohibition will be effective for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2014.

A507. At a minimum, “essential benefits” include:

• Ambulatory patient services
• Emergency services
  
• Hospitalization
• Maternity and newborn care
• Mental health and substance use disorder services
• Prescription drugs
• Laboratory services
• Rehabilitative services and devices
• Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
• Pediatric services, including oral and vision care
• Any other benefit that the Secretary later deems “essential”

A508. The existing regulations under HIPAA explicitly identify insured Medicare supplement plans (those that just fill in Medicare's deductibles and coinsurance) as HIPAA-excepted benefits. Therefore, stand alone Medicare supplement plans may not be subject to the requirement to provide unlimited benefits. However, typical carve out plans (those that provide benefits that coordinate with Medicare instead of just supplement them) are not excepted, and will have to provide unlimited benefits under the new rules if they are provided in the same plan as active benefits. See Q 509 for a discussion of benefits offered under a separate retiree only plan.

A509. Yes. Recent guidance indicates that self insured retiree only plans subject to ERISA are not subject to the lifetime maximum rule. Moreover, the regulators have said that they will not enforce the lifetime maximum requirements for other retiree only plans (e.g. insured plans or plans maintained by non-federal governmental entities). See Q 515 for more on which retiree plans may still be affected.

A510. Perhaps. The retiree only plan exemption appears to require a legally separate retiree only plan. It is clear that a single plan that covers both active and retiree benefits will have to eliminate annual and lifetime maximums. However, any newly segregated plan might be considered to be a “subterfuge” to avoid the provisions of the law, and could risk the overall grandfathered status.

A511. The HIPAA penalty of $100 per beneficiary per day would apply.

A512. This will depend on how low your maximum is today, how your carrier is administering it and the precise methodology your actuary is currently using to measure it. In many cases, the lifetime maximum does not have a significant impact on the measurement of retiree obligations. You should talk with your actuary as soon as possible to gauge the potential impact.

A513. If it is material, you would need to reflect it in the period that it becomes measurable. Given the regulatory guidance exempting retiree only plans, the employer has to make a decision whether to separate the retirees into a separate plan, or amend the retiree benefit to provide for the unlimited lifetime benefit. We would assume that decision would be treated as a plan amendment when made, and reflected in employer’s retiree medical obligation at that point.

A514. Originally, the HIPAA portability rules did not apply to plans that had “less than 2 participants who are current employees.” That exemption was repeated in 3 different places in the law: in the Internal Revenue Code, and ERISA (which generally regulate group health plans), as well as in the Public Health Service Act (which generally regulates individual insurance). This small-plan exemption had been widely interpreted to apply to retiree-only plans as well.

A515. Health reform eliminated the exemption contained in the Public Health Service Act (the provision with the widest application). It also amended ERISA and the IRC to add health reform provisions by a very broad provision. Recent guidance indicates that the amendment of ERISA and IRC relates to newly added provisions, not to the removal of this exemption. Thus, according to regulatory guidance, the exemption has only been eliminated in plans subject to the Public Health Service Act (e.g. insured plans, and non-federal governmental plans). The regulatory guidance indicated that the HHS (which enforces the Public Health Service Act) will not enforce this change on retiree only plans. However, other entities, including state insurance commissions or individual participants are not bound by this regulation and may attempt to enforce HIPAA portability rules.

A516. The new lifetime maximum provisions have been added to overall section of the law created for HIPAA portability. So, in general, any plan subject to the HIPAA portability rules is subject to the new lifetime maximum provision, and likewise any plan subject to the lifetime maximum provision is subject to HIPAA portability.

The health care reform legislation not only added this new lifetime maximum provision into the HIPAA portability section, but made some changes to the rules defining which plans were exempt from HIPAA portability.

A517. HIPAA portability requirements have both statutory and regulatory exemptions that now will apply to the new annual and lifetime maximums. These rules exempt:

• Retiree only plans (separate legal plan from actives)
• Stand-alone dental or vision plans
• Medicare Supplements (but as currently defined, Medicare coordinated plans offered by employers are not exempt)
• Flexible Spending Accounts, which as defined includes reimbursement accounts that apply to retirees that are limited to $500 per year.
• Worker’s compensation benefits
• Medical benefits provided under automobile insurance or general liability insurance

We hope that regulations will expand the scope of these exemptions at least from some of the new requirements. In particular, the entire regulatory scheme of HIPAA and the new rules are meant to provide broad based coverage to individuals not yet on Medicare, so we would hope and strongly suggest that the Medicare supplement exemption be expanded to include any medical benefit and prescription drug benefit that is provided by the employer to its Medicare eligible population. Otherwise, employers will just eliminate these benefits that coordinate with a Medicare scheme that was already designed to provide an adequate level of coverage of essential benefits for the older retirees.

A601. There are only two direct changes to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) under the law, both of which become effective January 1, 2011. First, amounts paid for over-the-counter drugs generally will no longer be treated as medical expenses—only expenses for prescribed drugs and insulin will qualify for reimbursement. In addition, the penalty for all non-medical expense reimbursements will increase from 10 to 20 percent.

Employer-sponsored HSA-compatible high deductible health plans (HDHP) will be affected in the same way as other group health plans.

A602. Health care reform made three changes to health FSAs:

• FSAs may no longer reimburse OTC medications (unless insulin or prescribed by a physician - effective 2011)
• The maximum employee contribution limit is reduced to $2,500 (effective 2013 and indexed thereafter)
• FSAs are included in the calculation of the Cadillac tax (effective 2018).

A603. Beginning January 1, 2011, amounts paid for over-the-counter drugs generally will not be treated as medical expenses—only expenses for prescribed drugs and insulin will qualify for reimbursement through a health reimbursement account. So, if your program currently reimburses expenses for all over-the-counter drugs, it will have to be changed.

A604. No. The rule change is specific to OTC medications. Therefore, account plans would still be allowed to reimburse for other OTC items, such as bandages or medical devices.

A701. Effective with plan years beginning after September 23, 2010 (e.g., 2011 for calendar year plans) health plans that offer dependent coverage for children will have to make medical coverage available to children up to age 26 regardless of marital or student status or whether they reside with or receive support from the employee. There does not appear to be any delay in the effective date that applies to collectively bargained plans.

A702. No. Stand-alone dental and vision plans (e.g., those with a separate election and costs) qualify as “HIPAA-excepted benefits” and are not subject to this mandate.

A703. Yes. But you do not have to offer coverage to the spouse and dependents of these adult children..

A704. Not for children under age 26. However, this condition could be imposed on a child age 26 or older.

A705. Yes in most cases. Michelle’s law and its notice requirements only apply to plans which contain a “student status” requirement. Plans can no longer have such a requirement for children under age 26. If a plan requires children age 26 or older to have student status as a condition of continued eligibility, Michelle’s Law would still be applicable.

A706. Not for children under age 26. Except as described in Q/A 707, as long as a child under age 26 has the familial relationship with the employee required by the plan (e.g., child, stepchild) the plan cannot impose any condition on a child’s eligibility for coverage.

A707. You can use a process similar to what many employers already use to determine existence of other coverage when administering COB rules or spousal surcharges. These processes can range from ‘honor system’ affidavits to full documentation audits.

A708. You can use a process similar to what many employers already use to determine existence of other coverage when administering COB rules or spousal surcharges. These processes can range from ‘honor system’ affidavits to full documentation audits.

A709. No. You cannot vary the terms or conditions of coverage based on the age of a child. Provision requiring full-time student status are generally based on the age of the child (e.g., only required of children over age 18).

A710. Generally no. Coverage provided to an employee’s children through the calendar year in which they turn age 26 is not includible in income even if they don’t qualify as the employee’s tax dependent. For this purpose, “child” means the employee’s son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter and foster child; it does not include grandchildren. Note that this new tax treatment is available immediately, which means that if you are currently imputing income for coverage provided to an employee’s child, stepchild or foster child, you may need to adjust your procedures depending on the terms of your plan. The value of domestic partner coverage, however, remains taxable income.

A711. Yes. You may let employees pay for coverage of these children on a pre-tax basis as of March 30, 2010 even if not permitted under the current language in your cafeteria plan document. However, the IRS requires that the cafeteria plan be amended retroactively to the first date employees are allowed to make these contributions (no earlier than March 30, 2010) no later than December 31, 2010.

A712. You can terminate coverage of a child on the date of his or her 26th birthday. However, if for administrative reasons you decide to continue their coverage until the end of that month or the end of that plan year, you may do so without adverse tax consequences to the employee.

A713. Yes. The loss of dependent status under the terms of the plan is a COBRA qualifying event and these adult children would be eligible for up to another 36 months of continuation, at COBRA rates.

A714. While the law expands the definition of eligible dependents, it does not eliminate the need to periodically audit the eligibility of dependents enrolled in your plan. It still will be important to confirm marital status, relationship status, and, under the new law, whether an adult child is eligible for other employer-sponsored health coverage. If your plan varies employee contributions by dependent status (e.g., you charge less for full-time students or financially dependent children) you still will need to verify these characteristics.

A715. Yes. Plans must provide written notice to children whose coverage ended, or who were not eligible for coverage before they turned age 26, that they are now eligible to enroll. This notice may be provided to an employee on behalf of the employee’s child and may be included with other enrollment materials that a plan distributes to employees, as long as the statement is prominent.

A716. Yes. You are required to provide an enrollment opportunity of at least 30 days (and the notice described above) so a two-week open enrollment period won’t satisfy this requirement. You must provide the notice.

A717. You must provide an enrollment period of at least 30 days (and the notice described above) which begins no later than the first day of the first plan year beginning on and after September 23, 2010. Regardless of when the child is enrolled, coverage must be retroactive to the first day of the plan year.

A718. No, you do not have to provide the enrollment opportunity and notice to children who did not lose coverage. However, you will be required to provide the enrollment opportunity and notice to children under age 26 who previously became ineligible because of their age or who were not enrolled at their parent’s last enrollment opportunity because they were too old.

A719. No, you do not have to provide the enrollment opportunity and notice to children who did not lose coverage. However, you will be required to provide the enrollment opportunity and notice to children under age 26 who previously became ineligible because of their age or who were not enrolled at their parent’s last enrollment opportunity because they were too old.

A720. No. The majority of ineligible dependents identified by our audits have been for reasons other than non-students status (e.g. divorce, nieces, nephews, grandchildren). These instances of ineligible dependents will be just as common post-PPACA.

A721. Yes. For the next three years, grandfathered plans can make this a requirement for eligibility. It is advisable to audit the availability of other coverage before allowing these dependents on your plan.

A722. No. Starting next year, you will no longer be able to restrict eligibility to your plan to FT students (of any age). However, you may wish to accept documentation of FT student status as one form of proof that no other employment-based coverage is available.

A723. Once identified, a plan should only remove ineligible dependents prospectively, and with proper advance notice to affected employees. Retrospective termination might be viewed as “rescission”, an insurance practice which has been severely curtailed by PPACA.

A801. If your plan was in existence on March 23, 2010, it will be a grandfathered plan.

A802. Grandfathered plans can still:

• Add new employees or new enrollees
• Add new dependents of existing employees
• Renew an insurance policy (insured plans)
• Change ASO administrator &340;self-funded plans)

Subject to further guidance, routine changes in Rx formularies and provider networks should not affect grandfathered status.

A803. A plan or option will lose its grandfathered status under any of the following conditions:

• Changing insurer (insured plans)
• Eliminating coverage (or any necessary element) to diagnose or treat a specific condition
• Eliminating certain existing benefit options
• Reducing annual dollar limits by any amount
• Increasing a flat dollar co-pay by more than the greater of $5 (indexed) or medical trend plus 15%
• Increasing flat dollar deductible or out-of-pocket maximums by more than medical trend plus 15%
• Reducing corporate premium subsidies by more than 5 percentage points
• Transferring employees from one plan to another that are not for bona fide business reasons (anti-abuse rule)
• Increasing employee coinsurance percentages by any amount (e.g. from 20% to 25%)
• Failure to provide required notice/disclosure to employees about claimed grandfathered status

A804. Grandfathered plans are exempt from the following requirements:

• Coverage of preventive health services at 100%
• Implementation of various cost management activities (e.g. case management, reduction in hospital readmission and wellness programs) and reporting to Secretary of HHS and participants
• Implementation of specific appeals process, including external review
• Permitting certain choice of providers for pediatric and ob/gyn care and require in-network coverage for emergency room visits to non-network providers
• Coverage of certain treatment related to clinical trials
• Non-discrimination requirements for insured plans (self-insured plans remain subject to Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules)

A805. Grandfathered plans must still comply with the following requirements:

• Extension of coverage to adult children to age 26 (but grandfathered plans may exclude those eligible for other coverage (other than their parents’ coverage) until 2014)
• Prohibition of lifetime dollar limits
• Prohibition of pre-existing condition limitations on dependents under age 19 by 2011
• Prohibition of pre-existing condition limitations entirely by 2014
• Restrictions on annual dollar limits from 2010-2013 and no annual dollar limits beginning in 2014
• Use of the standard uniform explanation of coverage
• Prohibition against rescission
• Prohibition of waiting periods greater than 90 days (starting in 2014)
• $2,500 limit on salary reduction contributions to health FSAs
• No tax-free reimbursement of over-the-counter medications (other than insulin) not prescribed by a physician
• Auto enrollment requirement
• Report medical loss ratios and give rebates if they do not meet the applicable standards (insurers only)
• “Cadillac” plan excise tax

A806. Yes. They must comply with the rules that apply to all grandfathered plans. There is no delayed effective date for collectively bargained plan. Insured (but not self-funded) plans, however, retain their grandfathered status even if there is a change in insurer or other changes that would normally terminate grandfathered status are made until the date on which the last of the collective bargaining agreements relating to the coverage in effect on March 23, 2010 terminates.

A901. The law provides a temporary government reinsurance program that would pay a portion of the benefit claims of certain early retirees and their dependents.

A902. The program is effective on June 1, 2010. Claims incurred before that date count towards the minimum threshold of $15,000 but are not eligible for reimbursement.

A903. January 1, 2014 when the Exchanges go live or until the $5B appropriation runs out (expected to be sooner).

A904. Eligible retirees are those 55 and older, not on Medicare and not actively working for the employer providing health coverage. Their eligible dependents can be any age.

A905. The program would reimburse 80% of any eligible individual’s claims between $15,000 and $90,000 in covered expenses. On average, we’ve actuarially estimated that the reinsurance payment might be worth at least $2,000 per covered member per year.

A906. Any “health benefit” including medical, surgical, hospital and prescription drug. HIPAA excepted benefits (e.g., long-term care, and stand-alone dental and vision programs) are not reimbursable.

A907. The plan sponsor or a designated agent.

A908. To be eligible a plan must include programs that have generated or have the potential to generate cost-savings in connection with high-cost and chronic conditions. The plan must be able to demonstrate the cost savings or potential cost savings. The plan must also have an anti-fraud program in place.

A909. The regulations permit broad use of the proceeds to reduce the sponsor’s plan costs or the plan participants’ costs (or a combination of both). However, the proceeds cannot be used as general revenue for the plan sponsor. The guidance includes a “maintenance of effort” requirement if the funds are used to reduce the sponsor’s plan costs.

A910. The guidance is not totally clear. There was an illustration saying that the money could be used for increases in premium costs, not just for retirees in the program, but for Medicare eligible retirees and even active employees. In that situation, the maintenance of effort would have the employer paying the current level of costs. But in Q&As, it seems as if the employer could reduce what it otherwise would have paid and not affect the program. There is also a lack of guidance on timing. There is some implication that the money had to be used (and hence effort maintained) in the program period of 6/1/10 - 12/31/13.

A911. It’s similar to RDS. There is a requirement to have an estimate of expected reinsurance claims, but no requirement for actuarial certification.

A912. Similar to the RDS requirement, the sponsor must have a written agreement with its health plan or health insurance issuer authorizing the disclosure of PHI to the Secretary.

A913. Very. HHS has established a first-come, first-served process for distributing these limited funds.

A914. Very. Any filing glitch, no matter how minor, could result in HHS returning your application and pushing your claim to the back of the line.