Which statement is correct regarding fully insured Section 412(e)(3) plans?

The correct statement regarding fully insured Section 412(e)(3) plans is that they are inappropriate for employers unable to make regular payments. This is because fully insured Section 412(e)(3) plans rely on the consistent and reliable funding of premiums to ensure the plan can meet its obligations to participants. These plans are designed around the premise that employers will make regular contributions to maintain the insurance contracts that fund the benefits. If an employer cannot commit to regular payments, the efficacy and integrity of the plan can be jeopardized, potentially leading to inadequate funding for the promised benefits.

Other statements do not align with the nature of fully insured Section 412(e)(3) plans. Such plans do not typically require certification by an enrolled actuary, as they are fully insured and instead rely on the insurance provider's obligations. Additionally, employers are expected to maintain regular premium payments, so the idea of committing to irregular payments contradicts the structure and purpose of such plans. Lastly, while funding delays can sometimes occur in various plans, fully insured Section 412(e)(3) plans emphasize timely funding because delayed payments can compromise the financial security of the plan and its ability to provide the promised benefits.