Four Common Pitfalls in a Dermatology Practice’s Retirement Plan
How to identify and avoid common mistakes.
In our careers, we have reviewed many dermatology practices’ qualified retirement plans (QRPs), including 401(k)s, profit-sharing plans, defined benefit plans, and hybrid plans. We often see four common pitfalls that are either costing the practice more in fees or subjecting the practice or its owners to potential liability. In this article, we will identify the leading issues we have observed in medical practice QRPs and offer potential tactics for avoiding them.
1. Paying too much in fees for recordkeeping, third-party administration, or investment advisory services.
Many dermatology practices are either paying far too much in QRP fees or simply aren’t getting much for the fees they are paying. Fees can often be disguised in the underlying fund ratios from which the service providers are reimbursed. Trustees and practice managers overseeing these plans must fully understand the plan design, the fees the plan is paying, and the role of each underlying party. A plan that fails to monitor any of these elements can expose the company to possible lawsuits.
To circumvent this service and fee issue, have an independent company facilitate periodic benchmarking reviews. These are compiled using third-party information to evaluate the services provided to a plan for the fees being charged and relate those services to other similar plans in a benchmark group. The review can also save the company and participants money, identify sub-standard service providers, and improve the plan design and features.
2. There is a potential conflict of interest between your third-party administrator (TPA) and the in-house investment advisor.
Despite recent technological advances and widespread access to low-cost index investing, many QRPs still include expensive mutual fund lineups or lack key elements of the major investment asset classes. A plan that has an average mutual fund expense ratio over one percent is probably paying too much.
These higher fees typically arise from an inherent conflict of interest when a plan chooses to bundle their TPA, investment advisor, and recordkeeper. (The term “bundle” means that all three roles fall under one company relationship.) Such combined services can allow potential conflicts to flourish—as the investment advisor may have in-house or proprietary funds to utilize inside of the plan. The real question becomes, “Is the advisor or firm paid more for having these funds inside of the investment lineup?” (The answer is often “yes,” especially when lacking low-cost options).
Trustees and practice managers need to understand how each party is being paid, as that will often drive behavior. This information can easily be obtained through the annual 408(b)(2) disclosure required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Transparency of fees is vital in today’s regulatory environment.
3. The plan is lacking a robust investment fund lineup, or the fund lineup is too expensive.
There is a fine line between not having enough investment options in a retirement plan and having too many. Having 10 large-cap value funds on the platform doesn’t make a lot of sense, because participants will have a difficult time choosing which one is right for them. But, offering only one fund is also a problem. As an example of a middle ground, a low-cost passive fund could be offered along with a more expensive actively managed fund that aims to outperform the underlying index benchmark. This approach provides participants with the flexibility to choose the option that fits their comfort level. We also recommend including target-date retirement funds, which can serve as a one-stop investment option for participants.
4. There is no co-fiduciary to share potential liability for the plan and its management.
Dermatology practices, as employers, have a fiduciary duty to employees to prudently manage the QRP. If they do not, they can face significant liability. For example, The University of Chicago paid $6.5 million to settle a class action alleging that it failed its fiduciary duty to employees in ways that forced them to pay excessive fees in their retirement plan.
Moreover, such liability is typically not covered by malpractice or general liability insurance. Many QRPs elect to have additional fiduciary liability insurance to protect the practice and employer against claims of mismanagement of a company’s retirement plan(s). (Fiduciary liability insurance is not required by ERISA or any federal statute.)
Given this potential liability for the practice—and that any of the other pitfalls could cause such liability—adding a co-fiduciary to a practice’s QRP is highly recommended. This can be accomplished through a 3(21) co-fiduciary role or the 3(38) designation, which provides sole discretionary decision making to a third-party investment manager. A 3(21) investment advisor works with the trustees of the plan to recommend the investment lineup for the plan but does not have discretion over plan investments. If you prefer to maintain control, work with a 3(21) advisor. If your goal is to fully limit your fiduciary liability, choose a 3(38) investment advisor, who has the discretion and authority to manage the fund lineup.
One important best practice to consider is the use of an “unbundled” investment advisor who is independent from the TPA and recordkeeper and can act as a co-fiduciary on the plan. This strategy can have the following benefits:
• Ensures your advisors are co-fiduciaries and independent of the other providers on your plan
• Helps to coordinate regular benchmarking on the investments/plan providers managing your plan
a. Review fees comparing them with industry standards
b. Determine which fees are justifiable and which services bring value to the plan
c. Monitor communications between third-party service providers and plan beneficiaries to make sure they receive advice that is in their best interest
• Identifies what needs to be disclosed to plan beneficiaries and how this information will be delivered
• Establishes a due diligence process for the investments inside of the plan
a. Create a methodology to select investments and manage risks
b. Review asset performances and potentially replacing assets
c. Present educational sessions for company employees
• Keeps records of all communications and due diligence processes.
The Benefits of Audits
To avoid common pitfalls and implement best practices for your QRP, periodically have a third party perform an audit of the plan through an independent benchmark study. In addition to presenting changes that can reduce fees, costs, and conflicts, this audit can help you reduce potential liability exposure for the dermatology practice and its owners.