The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee was established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to advance comparative clinical effectiveness research. The PCORI fee is assessed on issuers of health insurance policies and sponsors of self-insured health plans. The fees are calculated using the average number of lives covered under the policy or plan, and the applicable dollar amount for that policy or plan year.
On September 17, 2015, McDermott hosted a webcast featuring, among others, four speakers from our own Employee Benefits, Compensation and Labor & Employment practice discussing the ramifications of the NLRB’s decision and the steps businesses should be taking to decrease risk associated with joint-employer relationships.
Click here to view the archived webinar (materials available here until December 17, 2015).
Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave an important data privacy ruling, which any business transferring personal data between the EU and US should know about – particularly those that have made use of the “Safe Harbor” scheme for data transfer, which the CJEU has now ruled to be invalid.
Read the full UK Employment Alert.
On-site clinics can be a valuable addition to an employer’s overall health care strategy with respect to promoting prevention, improving quality outcomes and reducing the employer’s overall trend in health care spending. However, given the myriad laws that apply to such clinics, an employer is well-advised to develop a comprehensive legal compliance strategy in designing and implementing the structure and operation of its onsite clinic.
Recognized for outstanding contributions in the category of Labor and Employment, McDermott’s Employee Benefits Blog has been selected from more than 2,000 nominees to be one of only 250 blogs chosen to compete in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest. The blog’s editors, Diane Morgenthaler and Maureen O’Brien, welcome your support in voting. The voting polls close today and the process is very simple.
Vote here.
*To ensure that your vote is properly counted, we encourage you to vote from your personal computer or mobile device.
The English Court of Appeals ruled that UK court has jurisdiction over UK executive’s lawsuit involving a U.S.-based stock option plan, despite the stock option plan’s clear language requiring Massachusetts choice of law and jurisdiction. Multinational companies sponsoring broad-based employee plans should be on notice that non-EU exclusive jurisdiction clauses may not be enforceable against EU-based employees.
Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, an excise tax of 40 percent will be imposed on the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage that exceeds an annual limit. This tax is informally known as the “Cadillac Tax” and will impose a penalty on employers, health insurers and “persons who administer plan benefits” with regard to high-cost health care coverage.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently addressed the notice requirement of the federal successor liability doctrine where withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan occurred after a sale of assets.
“Massive terminations” occur in China when an employer terminates more than 20 employees or more than 10 percent of its total employees at one time. Even though there are no official statistics on massive terminations of employees in China, recent news reports indicates an increase based on overseas investment leaving China. This article provides an overview of some of the common characteristics of massive terminations and of the issues companies with Chinese employees should consider in implementing a massive termination.
Read the full China Law Alert.
On September 4, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), does not preempt an Illinois state insurance regulation that prohibits discretionary authority clauses in health and disability plan insurance policies. The Seventh Circuit upheld the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which decided that the Illinois regulation was not subject to preemption under precedent set forth in prior decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Subscribe
