Maryland assisted-living board picks employer plan after state mandate

A Maryland assisted-living facility board chose an employer-sponsored retirement plan over the state-facilitated option after learning of a state mandate, according to a PLANADVISER column published Oct. 26.

The board chose an employer plan over the state-facilitated option after learning of the mandate, said Greg Bailey, an LPL associate general counsel on the board. Once members understood the requirement, the discussion moved from how to comply to whether a retirement plan could help the facility attract and retain employees. The state program would have satisfied the mandate; the board instead picked the plan it saw as better fit for those workforce goals.

For advisers with small-business clients in states with retirement mandates, the notice is a scheduled reason to call. The column says an adviser does not need to be the recordkeeper, attorney or plan administrator to open the conversation. The question to put to an owner is whether a state program or an employer plan better serves the workforce goals the owner describes.

Early research suggests employers facing state auto-IRA mandates are more likely to adopt employer-sponsored plans than similar firms elsewhere, the column says. The work comes from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, and the author reads it as support for the view that mandates would do more than expand access to savings.

Three forces arrive alongside the notices, according to the column: expanded tax incentives under SECURE and SECURE 2.0, the upcoming Saver's Match, and workforce pressure that puts benefits inside the hiring decision. State-facilitated programs may still be the right fit for some employers; others use the notice to take a wider look at their retirement benefit strategy.