Benefit Controversies
Subscribe to Benefit Controversies's Posts

A Light in the Dark: Seventh Circuit Helps Clarify New Pleading Standards for 401(k) Fee Cases

A recent US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case supplies answers to many questions left open in 401(k) fee litigation cases after the US Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in Hughes v. Northwestern University. Specifically, to survive a motion to dismiss in the Seventh Circuit, the recent ruling in Albert v. Oshkosh Corp. reiterated that plaintiffs must allege both high fees and substandard services or performance in comparison to other similar 401(k) plans.

Read more here.




How the Overturning of Roe v. Wade May Affect US Employer Benefits Plans

The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has led to a flurry of confusion and questions from employers. In this Benefits Canada article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii explains how some states are imposing criminal penalties for anyone who assists with abortion within their borders.

“If a court determines state abortion restrictions are generally applicable criminal laws, then potentially, ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plans can be subject to criminal penalties if they provide abortion services, including travel benefits,” Raaii said.

Access the article.




The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Healthcare Provisions

After almost a year of negotiations among congressional Democrats and the White House, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed into law by President Biden on August 16, 2022. It passed in the US Senate by a vote of 50–50, with the vice president breaking the tie, on August 7, 2022. The bill passed the US House of Representatives August 12, 2022, by a party-line vote of 220-207. This McDermott+Consulting article summarizes the key healthcare provisions of the IRA, including prescription drug reform, inflationary rebates, a cap on insulin costs, a Medicare Part D benefit redesign and a new pharmacy benefit manager rebate rule.

Read more here.




Texas Abortion-related Litigation ‘just getting started’

It was a busy end of August for abortion-related litigation in Texas. Multiple pro-reproductive justice nonprofit groups sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other prosecutors to protect the ability of pregnant Texans to obtain abortions in outside states, and Texas’ new trigger ban law went into effect. In this MedCity News article, McDermott Partner Caroline Reignley notes how the US Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision “did not end the debate over abortion or limit court intervention.”

Access the article.




Want to Provide Abortion Travel Benefits at Your Company? Here’s How to Protect Employees

How can companies provide abortion travel benefits to their workers without disclosing sensitive medical information? In this Corporate Counsel article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii provides insight into how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) offer protections for workers seeking reproductive healthcare services.

“The most common way that we’ve seen employers offering these abortion benefits is to include them in their existing ERISA health plans, in which case they [the plans] would be subject to HIPAA,” Raaii said.

Access the article.




A Practical Guide to Conducting a HIPAA Security Risk Analysis

How do organizations go about conducting a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) security risk analysis (HRSA)? In this Health Law Weekly article, McDermott Partner Ryan S. Higgins provides a step-by-step guide to conducting an HRSA and offers practical guidance to address the key issues effectively.

Read more here.




What Should GCs Know About the Abortion Landscape?

What should company general counsels (GCs) know about abortion trigger bans, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and how not to break the law in light of the new abortion landscape in the United States? In this MedCity News article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii offers insight into how companies can protect abortion access for workers.

“One thing that GCs and employers should do is closely track any new state developments in a state you have business interests in,” Raaii said. “And if you have employees all over, unfortunately that could mean keeping track of 50 different states laws because it’s as simple as ‘this state does or doesn’t prohibit abortion,’ there’s different levels of protection.”

Access the article.




HHS Issues Proposed Rule Under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities

On August 4, 2022, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM or proposed rule) to reinterpret section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in a health program or activity, any part of which is receiving federal financial assistance. The proposed rule restores and strengthens certain civil rights protections under federally funded health programs and HHS programs which were limited following the 2020 Trump-era version of the rule, specifically regarding discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and returns certain protections for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). Additionally, the proposed rule bolsters protections against discrimination in healthcare by clarifying that funds received under several federal healthcare programs, including Medicare Part B, are included in the definition of federal financial assistance under the law. As such, under the proposed rule, the list of entities expected to comply with the nondiscrimination measures outlined in Section 1557 of the ACA is significantly expanded, in many ways aligning with the 2016 Obama-era version of the rule. The NPRM also proposes to expand the applicability of the post-Bostock interpretation of “on the basis of sex” to Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). For now, portions of the 2020 Final Rule not discordant with Bostock continue to apply.

Read more here.




How Can Employers Protect Workers Who Seek Abortion Care?

As US states seek to reduce abortion access in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, how can employers protect workers who seek abortion care? In this Fortune article, McDermott’s David Gacioch, Sarah Raaii and Ellen Bronchetti offer insight into what the US Supreme Court’s decision means for employee healthcare data, employee benefits and Title VII.

“Any employer who doesn’t already have an assessment of what the end of Roe means for its operations and workforce…needs to get in front of this,” Gacioch said.

Access the article.




Hospitals Shouldn’t Expect Quick Pay Despite 340B Win

340B hospitals should not expect to receive withheld program funds anytime soon despite a recent US Supreme Court ruling. According to this Becker’s Hospital Review article, the Court reversed a 2020 federal appeals court ruling that found that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had the authority to make a $1.6 billion annual reimbursement cut to the program under its Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). McDermott Partner Emily J. Cook said that the ruling will not result in any immediate changes to Medicare payments for 340B drugs nor require that HHS restore the full payment rates for the drugs.

Access the article.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Top ranked chambers 2022
US leading firm 2022