Skip to content


Health savings administrators richmond

health savings administrators richmond

Spending or Health Savings Accounts and Voluntary Life and Disability Insurance. is available at the Lexington Clinic Richmond location. A person might wonder why they should consider a career in healthcare administration. Administrators ensure healthcare facilities function efficiently at all. Scott Borden is Vice President of Sales at Health Savings Administrators LLC. Jarrett and John Vellines in 1996 and is headquartered in Richmond, VA.
health savings administrators richmond

You can watch a thematic video

: Health savings administrators richmond

How to cancel direct debit online santander
Surprise gift for husband on 1st anniversary
Fnb omaha credit inquiry
Standard bank key west trading hours

HEALTH SAVINGS ADMINISTRATORS Revenue, Growth & Competitor Profile

Last updated:

Company Awards

Fast Growing

Fastest Growing

Brain Power (IP)

Patent/Trademark IP

Company Profile & Annual Report for Health Savings Administrators

Access the complete profile.

Health Savings Administrators Fast Facts

Note: Revenues for privately held companies are statistical evaluations.

Health Savings Administrators's annual revenues are $10-$50 million (see exact revenue data) and has 10-100 employees. It is classified as operating in the Insurance Carriers industry.

Health Savings Administrators's Annual Report & Profile shows critical firmographic facts:
  • What is the company's size? (Annual sales and employees)
  • What industry is the company in?

Health Savings Administrators Annual Revenue and Growth Rate

Health Savings AdministratorsRevenue Est.
($ Million)
Growth Rate (%)# Employees
2020Details in Premium Report

1-Year Growth Rate:
3-Year Growth Rate (CAGR):
Premium Report

Note: Health Savings Administrators's revenues are gauged from an analysis of company filings.

Health Savings Administrators's Income Statement (based on Industry Averages)

$ Millions
(Industry Average)
Health Savings Administrators Revenue (Sales)Health Savings Administrators Premium Report
Cost of Goods Sold
Gross Profit

Operating Expenses
Salaries and wages
Other Operating Expenses
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes)
Net Profit

Trademark Applications

Trademark applications show the products and services that Health Savings Administrators is developing and marketing. Health Savings Administrators doesn't have any recent trademark applications, indicating Health Savings Administrators is focusing on its existing business rather than expanding into new products and markets. Trademarks may include health savings administrators richmond names, product names, logos and slogans.

Financial record-keeping for benefits administration and investments; Financial record-keeping for benefits administration and investments via the Internet
Financial record-keeping for benefits administration and investments; Financial record-keeping for benefits administration and investments via the Internet
Financial record-keeping for benefit accounts; Financial record-keeping for benefit accounts via the Internet

See all trademarks and details health savings administrators richmond the Full Report.

Recession Risk

Determine whether Health Savings Administrators grew or shrank during the last recession. This is useful in estimating the financial strength and credit risk of the company. Compare how recession-proof Health Savings Administrators is relative to the industry overall. While a new recession may strike a particular industry, measuring the industry and company's robustness during the last recession estimates its ability to weather future recessions.

Market Share of Health Savings Administrators's Largest Competitors

A competitive analysis shows these companies are in the same general field as Health Savings Administrators, even though they may not compete head-to-head. These are the largest companies by revenue. However, they may not have the largest market share in this industry if they have diversified health savings administrators richmond other business lines. The "Competition" section of a business plan or investment memorandum would start by analyzing the information about these companies. Competitive advantage comes from offering better pricing or superior products/service.

CompanyHeadquartersRevenue ($ MM)
WELLPOINTIndianapolis, IN100 
ATH HOLDINGIndianapolis, IN88 
HUMANALouisville, KY61 
GENERAL REStamford, CT46 

Nearby Competitors

These companies are similar in business line and location to Health Savings Administrators. While some companies compete with neighboring businesses for customers, other companies may compete to attract skilled employees.

Future Competition: Health Savings Administrators's Fastest Growing Competitors

These companies are in the same general field as Health Savings Administrators and are rapidly expanding. Companies may grow organically or through acquisition. In some cases apparently high growth rates may be caused by data that weren't available in previous years.

CompanyRevenue ($ MM)
Health Savings Administrators Competitors


Medical Savings Account (MSA)

What Is a Medical Savings Account (MSA)?

The term medical savings account can refer to any of several tax-benefitted arrangements enacted since the early 1990s. However, it also refers to a specific type of medical savings account (MSA) that was authorized and regulated under the Internal Revenue Code in the early 1990s. This type of account evolved into a health savings account (HSA).

Some Medicare Advantage plans offer Medicare MSAs. These accounts are regulated by the administrators of Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Key Takeaways

  • Medical savings accounts, created by several states in the early 1990s and later by a federal pilot program, were generally phased out in 2003 and succeeded by HSAs and health savings accounts.
  • Existing Archer MSAs were legacied in, but no new ones were allowed.
  • Employee HSAs can be structured to receive contributions from the employee, employer, or both.
  • Members of qualified high-deductible Medicare Advantage plans can establish medical savings accounts that Medicare regulates.
  • Some employers help employees pay for medical expenses by offering tax-benefitted flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

Understanding Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)

Medical savings accounts (MSAs) were first created by several states in the early 1990s. By 1996, these plans became a federal pilot program within the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Medical savings accounts enjoyed tax benefits under the Internal Revenue Code and were models for succeeding medical savings arrangements.

The original type of MSA, which could be used by individuals who were either self-employed or members of small group plans and enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), was phased out in 2003. However, MSAs structured as Archer MSAs were “grandfathered,” that health savings administrators richmond, permitted to continue, although no new Archer MSAs may be created.

Participants in high-deductible Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use Medicare MSAs funded by MA plans that meet guidelines established by Medicare.

In 2003, a new tax-benefitted arrangement, a health savings account (HSA), was enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Rules similar to those for MSAs (related to eligibility, HDHP deductibles, contributions, and tax treatment) apply to HSAs. A broader range of individuals can benefit from HSAs than were eligible for the original MSAs; HSAs are available to employed, self-employed, and unemployed individuals. An employee or an employer (or both) can contribute to an HSA. 

Some employees may be offered other employer-sponsored programs that provide tax-favored healthcare savings. Health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) are funded solely by the employer. On the other hand, the employee or employer (or both) may contribute to flexible spending arrangements (FSAs).

History of Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)

Medical savings accounts were put in place to make the high cost of healthcare services more affordable for Americans. Funding for the first MSAs was contributed by the individual or the employer, but not by both. MSAs were limited to the self-employed or employer groups with 50 or fewer employees, and they were subject to requirements relating to eligibility, contributions, and use of funds. Participants had to be enrolled does panda express take apple pay a high-deductible health insurance plan (HDHP). Individuals did not pay tax on their own (or their employer's) contributions. MSA distributions were tax-free if used for qualified medical expenses.

These arrangements were succeeded by HSAs, which continue to be available. HSAs adopted a structure and rules similar to those of MSAs, including the requirement that each account is coupled with an HDHP.

Types of Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)

Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)

As of 2021, a Medicare MSA is available with a high-deductible Medicare Advantage (MA) plan (Medicare Part C). The MA plan deposits funds to the insured's MSA, allowing the insured to use the funds to pay for medical care even before the deductible is reached. The Medicare MSA is similar to an HSA, allowing users to choose their healthcare providers and services. However, although Medicare MSA funds may be used for services not covered by Medicare, only the cost of Medicare services will be counted towards meeting the deductible.

For an extra cost, some Medicare MSAs cover extra benefits not covered by the MA Plan—for example, dental care, vision care, hearing aids, and long-term care. However, Medicare MSAs do not cover prescription drugs. Enrollment in Medicare Part D is required for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs.

People who are enrolled in a Medicare MSA can use funds from the account to pay for medical expenses even before reaching the high deductible of their insurance plan.

Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs)

Before 2008, self-employed individuals and small businesses with fewer than 50 employees who HDHPs covered were able to create MSAs, known as Archer MSAs, which were set up as tax-exempt trusts or custodial accounts with U.S. financial institutions. Archer MSAs generally worked in the same way as the original MSAs did. (The original MSAs were discontinued in 2003.) The law authorizing Archer MSAs expired as of Dec. 31, 2007. Because they were discontinued, no new Archer MSAs were created after that year. However, existing accounts were permitted to continue to receive and distribute funds.

Individuals’ contributions into Archer MSAs were tax-deductible. Currently, contributions into Archer MSA accounts that have been legacied are tax-deductible (whether or not the contributor itemized deductions). Employer contributions are not taxable to the employee. Only contributions in cash are permitted. Interest or other earnings and distributions to cover the cost of qualified medical expenses are tax-free. At year-end, unused balances can be rolled over to the following year. If insured individuals change jobs, the Archer MSA can move with them to the next employer, and they can make additional deposits provided they continue to be eligible.

Special Considerations

In 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act authorized the creation of health savings accounts (HSAs) to help pay the medical expenses of individuals enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). These accounts became a permanent feature of the tax code. 

Contributions to HSAs reduce federal taxable income. HSAs are available to any eligible individual with an HDHP, whether self-employed, unemployed, or employed by a small or large company. If an employer contributes to an HSA—or an employee contributes through payroll deductions—the amounts are excluded from the employee’s taxable income. Direct contributions by self-employed and unemployed individuals are tax-deductible, whether the individual claims the standard deduction or itemizes. Funding can be made anytime between the beginning of the calendar year and before the tax filing deadline for that year. Distributions to pay for qualified medical expenses are tax-free.

IRS: 2021 & 2022 Contribution and Out-of-Pocket Limits for Health Savings Accounts and High-Deductible Health Plans
HSA contribution limit (employer + employee)Self-only: $3,600  Family: $7,200Self-only: $3,650
Family: $7,300
HSA catch-up contributions (age 55 or older)$1,000$1000
HDHP minimum deductiblesSelf-only: $1,400 Family: $2,800Self-only: $1,400
Family: $2,800
HDHP maximum out-of-pocket amounts (deductibles, co-payments and other amounts but not premiumsSelf-only: $7,000 Family: $14,000Self-only: $7,050
Family: $14,100

Sources: Internal Revenue Service.

An HSA is a fully vested account; funds are not subject to forfeiture if they remain unspent at the end of the year. The IRS announces annually the HSA contribution limits and the required, inflation-adjusted HDHP amounts for the minimum health plan deductible and the ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses for both self-only and family coverage. Individuals age 55 and older are entitled to an additional contribution amount annually. Individuals enrolled in Medicare cannot contribute to HSAs, but they can make tax-free distributions from any remaining balance in an HSA to pay for qualified medical expenses.


Fourth Circuit: ERISA Preempts Maryland's "Fair Share" Law

Avoiding "Regulatory Balkanization" Trumps State's "Play or Pay" Health Care Reform

Maryland's "play or pay" health care statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal appeals court in Richmond has held. Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder, 4th Cir., No. 06-1840 (January 17, 2007). In its 2-1 decision striking down the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals relied on ERISA's fundamental goal of having uniform national administration of ERISA plans and to avoid "regulatory balkanization" by state and local laws.

The Court's decision increases the likelihood that similar state and municipal statutes also will be displaced by ERISA. Massachusetts, Suffolk County (NY), New York City and San Francisco already have enacted health care reform with "play or pay" features. Governor Arnold Shwarzenegger on January 8, 2007, proposed a sweeping reform of California's health care system, which includes a "play or pay" provision. In addition, Governor Edward Rendell on January 17, 2007, proposed "play or pay" legislation for Pennsylvania.

Maryland's "Fair Share Health Care Fund Act" (Act) would have required any for-profit employer with over 10,000 employees to spend at least eight percent of the amount of its state payroll on health insurance costs, beginning January 1, 2007. Covered employers who failed to do so would have been required to pay the difference to a public health fund to support Maryland's Medicaid and children's health programs. All employers would have been required to report annually the number of employees and the percent of compensation they spent on health insurance costs.

ERISA Preemption

ERISA is a comprehensive statute with expansive preemption provisions that seek to make the regulation of employee benefit plans exclusively a federal concern. With few narrow exceptions, Congress intended to provide a uniform framework of federal law which would oust state law regulation from plan design and administration. In particular, Congress sought to eliminate the service credit union branches near me for multi-state employers to administer their plans differently in each state in which they have employees. In analyzing whether state legislation is preempted by ERISA, courts generally consider (1) the objectives of ERISA in an attempt to discern what state laws Congress understood would survive preemption, as well as (2) the effect of the state law on an ERISA plan.

The Court acknowledged that the two central objectives of ERISA are (i) that employers not be required to provide any specific employee benefit covered by ERISA, but instead remain free to amend modify or terminate such plans at any time; and (ii) that the regulatory regime applying to ERISA covered plans be uniform across the country. The Court held that Maryland's Fair Share Act would undermine these objectives.

The Court focused particularly on the adverse effect that laws such as Maryland's would have on ERISA's goal to have national uniform administration of ERISA plans, even in states that would permit employers to opt-out of the law. Applying the Supreme Court's recent analysis in Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) (holding that ERISA preempted a Washington statute that voided the designation of a spouse as a beneficiary of a nonprobate asset, including ERISA-governed life insurance policies), the Court stated:

Even though the [Washington] statute permitted employers to opt out of the law with specific plan language, the [Supreme] Court struck the law down under ERISA's preemption provision because it still mandated that plan administrators "either follow Washington's beneficiary designation scheme or alter the terms of their plans so as to indicate that they will not follow it." Additionally, a proliferation of laws like Washington's would have undermined ERISA's objective of sparing plan administrators the task of monitoring the laws of all 50 States and modifying their plan documents accordingly. (Emphasis added).

The Court identified a number of ways in which Maryland's statute would adversely affect ERISA plans, thus supporting ERISA preemption of the state Act:

  • The State's argument that employers could choose to pay into the fund rather than increase health insurance spending was not a meaningful choice. The Court observed that choosing to spend the money on employees' health care, rather than paying that money to the state, would be "the decision of any reasonable employer." Also, since the "vast majority" of employer spending on employee health care occurs through ERISA plans, and even if on-site medical clinics and contributions to Health Savings Accounts were meaningful alternatives for directing non-ERISA healthcare spending, the "primary subjects of the [Act] are ERISA plans, and any attempt to comply with the Act would have direct effects on the employer's ERISA plans."
  • The requirement that Maryland employers track the health care spending on their Maryland employees would almost certainly alter the national uniform administration of health plans for most employers (with operations in Maryland and other states). Warning of a proliferation of similar state and municipality laws, the Court stated, "If permitted to stand, these laws would force [employers] to tailor [their] healthcare benefit plans to each specific State, and even to specific cities and counties. This is precisely the regulatory balkanization health savings administrators richmond Congress sought to avoid by enacting ERISA's preemption provision,"
  • Because the Maryland law would act "directly upon employers and their plans," unlike the indirect economic influences which have survived ERISA preemption challenges (see, e.g., N.Y. State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1999), it has a "connection with" ERISA plans. Indeed, the Court found a "tighter causal link" between the Act and employers' ERISA plans than, for example, as between a surcharge on insurance companies who use certain hospitals and employers' ERISA plans.

In the end, the Court concluded:

Were we to approve Maryland's enactment solely for its noble purpose, we would be leading a charge against the foundational policy and surely other States and local governments would follow. As sensitive as we are to the right of Maryland and other States to enact laws of their own choosing, we are also bound to enforce ERISA as the "supreme Law of the Land." U.S. Const. art. VI.

The Court rejected the State's argument that the Act merely is part of a comprehensive effort by Maryland to provide for the health care of its citizens. The State had argued that the payroll tax on employers (who can obtain a dollar for dollar credit against the tax for dollars spent on health insurance costs) can fund the state's Medical Assistance Program and that employers had choices other than changing their existing ERISA plans to comply with the Act's mandate. The Court disagreed.

Judge Michael, in dissent, argued that the statute was not preempted by ERISA because it does not require an employer to establish or maintain a plan and that an employer could choose to pay into the special fund rather than increasing spending on employee health insurance. Judge Michael stated that the statute "is in line with Congress's intention that states find innovative ways to solve the Medicaid funding crisis.[and is] a legitimate response to the consistent encouragement Congress has given to the states to find 'novel approaches' and to 'develop innovative and effective solutions' to deal with the worsening Medicaid funding problems."

Jurisdictional Issues

Prior to reaching the preemption argument, the Court rejected the State's three jurisdictional challenges. The State had challenged (i) the Retail Industry Leaders Association's "standing" to pursue the case; (ii) the "ripeness" of the matter for judicial decision; and (iii) the federal court's right to hear the case under the Tax Injunction Act. In holding that RILA had associational standing to bring the claim on behalf of its members and that the matter was "ripe" for judicial decision, the Court found that covered employers, including employers who were members of RILA, would have to "alter [their] internal accounting procedures and healthcare spending now to comply with the Act," Additionally, the Count found that the Tax Injunction Act did not apply because the Act was not a tax statute—its primary purpose was to regulate employers' health care spending, not to raise revenue for the general fund.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The State of Maryland may ask the Supreme Court of the United States to hear its appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision. Additional challenges to state and local efforts at health care reform will push the issue further through the federal courts. Ultimately, it is likely this particular issue of preemption will come before the United States Supreme Court, unless Congress acts sooner. Indeed, the Supreme Court has in recent years taken a good number of preemption cases. Given the importance of the health care debate nationally, that trend may very well continue.

Meanwhile, there are several possible consequences from this case: plaintiffs challenging or contemplating challenges to existing health care reform "play or pay" statutes will be heartened by this decision; legislatures considering "play or pay" statutes may be made more cautious; proponents of state health care reform may find solace in the dissenting opinion; and federal legislators who support health care reform will cite the decision as a reason to support federal initiatives such as the soon-to-be-proposed Healthy Americans Act.

©2007 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit

Despite Multi-Billion-Dollar Investment Opportunity, HSAs Are Not Being Fully Utilized in Long-Term Financial Strategy

Richmond, VA - June 10, 2019 - HealthSavings Administrators, a top health savings account (HSA) provider, today revealed the findings of a survey conducted to reveal what registered investment advisors (RIAs) know about HSAs and how they leverage HSAs for their practice. Of the more than 230 advisors surveyed, the majority is still not offering HSAs to clients, despite the triple tax advantage and multi-billion-dollar investment opportunity.

HSAs Missing From Client Conversations
According to the findings, nearly 60 percent of advisors are not offering HSAs to their clients, and a quarter of them (26 percent) admit they do not discuss HSAs with their clients at all. The responses revealed that a lack of knowledge about HSAs - how they operate and how they fit into a long-term financial strategy - is a primary driver for the disconnect. While 36 health savings administrators richmond of advisors noted they do not fully understand how an HSA works, 40 percent claim clients do not either. Further underscoring the need for more education, nearly half say that clients perceive Health savings administrators richmond as spending accounts only.

The survey also revealed that 22 percent of advisors are not aware they can earn revenue by offering an HSA. As individually owned accounts, HSAs can be invested like a 401(k) or an IRA. This means an RIA can be compensated for managing an HSA account based on a percentage of assets or a fixed fee. According to the latest research from Devenir, invested assets in HSAs are estimated to grow to $16.7 billion in the year 2020 - providing advisors with ample opportunity for compensation and client satisfaction.

Long-Term Investment Misfire
When advisors do offer HSAs to clients, nearly half (47 percent) still position them as spending accounts and 72 percent as savings accounts. Those findings reveal a deep-seated belief among advisors and clients alike that HSAs are short-term financial vehicles, despite industry research lauding the extensive benefits of investment-focused HSAs. While 73 percent of those surveyed claim they do offer investment-focused HSAs, less than half of their HSA-eligible client base (41 percent) is actually investing in an HSA for long-term growth.

Misunderstandings about how to leverage HSAs as long-term investment and retirement strategies are a primary factor for the mismatch. For example, 70 percent of respondents noted their clients are completely unaware of HSAs as a means of transferring wealth to family members. Anyone can fund an HSA for a loved one, as long as that loved one is HSA-eligible and has an HSA. In 2019, up to $3,500 can be deposited in an HSA for an individual under self-only health coverage, and $7,000 can be deposited for an individual under family coverage.

Service and Reputation Matter Most
Despite the current disconnect among advisors about how HSAs can benefit their practice and their client base, 79 percent of respondents who offer an HSA noted they are satisfied with their current HSA offering. When asked about what they care about when working with an HSA provider, an overwhelming majority of respondents (98 percent) cited reputation/trust and customer service as the top two factors. Low administration fees were also cited by 90 percent of respondents as a primary consideration.

"The call for better HSA education among consumers, plan sponsors and advisors is nothing new. What is changing, however, is the why," noted Craig Keohan, chief revenue health savings administrators richmond at HealthSavings Administrators. "With health care costs continuing to rise, there has never been a more critical time for advisors and consumers alike to build their knowledge about HSAs and where they fit into the retirement planning mix. Investment-focused HSAs are the future of the industry, and advisors will benefit by using them as strategic long-term investment vehicles that will help ensure happy, healthy retirements."

About HealthSavings Administrators
HealthSavings empowers consumer-driven health plan participants to invest all their health benefit dollars in institutional-class funds so they can grow their savings tax-free and meet their financial goals for a happy, healthy future. By choosing from a carefully curated selection of funds with lower expense ratios and no trading fees, HealthSavings accountholders have historically saved five times more than the industry average. Visit to learn more.


All Rights Reserved.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *