Your ACA Reporting Got Done, But at What Cost?

The deadline was met. The forms were filed. The invoice was paid.

Everyone moved on.

That is how an inefficient ACA reporting process can survive for years in a Georgia School District without anyone questioning it.

When your ACA reporting expert leaves

In some districts, ACA reporting lives almost entirely in one employee's head.

That person knows where the files are, which numbers look wrong, what the vendor expects, and how last year's problems were fixed. The process works because that person makes it work.

Then comes retirement, a resignation, an extended absence, or a job change.

Now, who has to file ACA reporting? Could another employee step in and complete the reporting without reconstructing the process from old emails and spreadsheets? Could they find prior-year records or explain why a particular employee did or did not receive a Form 1095-C?

If the answer is no, the district has more than a documentation problem. It has a compliance task resting on one person's memory.

Outsourcing the ACA reporting work, or only the filing?

Other districts have a vendor or software application, so the process feels safer.

But look closely at what still happens inside HR and payroll.

Are staff members spending days interpreting instructions written for corporate employers? Are they repeatedly changing data to fit a system that does not understand Georgia school districts and SHBP eligibility? Are they tracking hours across large groups of employees without a clear explanation of why the information is needed?

And after doing all that work, is the district still paying a substantial fee for the software or final transmission?

On paper, that is outsourcing. But the district is paying someone else while carrying most of the burden itself.

Some district involvement is unavoidable. The district owns its employment records and must answer questions that require local knowledge and judgment. But those questions should be clear and limited. HR should not have to become an ACA data-processing department just to make a vendor's platform function.

"We need it for the software system" is not a good enough explanation for hours of extra work.

The cost you cannot see on the invoice

A vendor's price is only part of the cost.

How many HR and payroll hours disappear into the ACA process each year? How much time goes into figuring out what the vendor wants, wrestling with poorly formatted ADP data, fabricating hours-worked data, correcting rejected records, recovering old records, or relearning software used once a year?

An inexpensive application can consume a surprising amount of staff time. An expensive provider can still leave the district wondering exactly what it paid for.

Before repeating last year's process, ask:

• Could someone else run it if the current owner were unavailable?

• Can the district explain why each major step is necessary?

• Are you confident of full compliance if the IRS came knocking?

• Is the outside provider reducing the work or merely assuming the easiest step?

• Has anyone compared the full cost with a simpler approach?

Clear Concepts helps Georgia school districts determine whether their current ACA reporting process is more complicated, labor-intensive, or expensive than it needs to be.

If the process has gone unchallenged because the forms keep getting filed, it may be time for a closer look. Reach out, and we can help you determine whether there is an easier and less expensive way to handle it.

This article provides general information and reflects Clear Concepts' recommended approach. It is not legal or tax advice.