Health Insurance Archives | EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG

What Venus Williams’ health insurance comments reveal about COBRA

by Sarah Raaii | Aug 14, 2025 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

When tennis superstar Venus Williams recently spoke about returning to the sport to maintain her health insurance, it highlighted a broader issue many employees face: navigating complex benefits after leaving their jobs. This challenge is particularly acute when it comes to Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) coverage, which allows former employees to temporarily keep their employer-sponsored health insurance. As Sarah Raaii points out, the high cost of COBRA and limited alternatives create significant financial strain. To address this, employers could provide clearer information about COBRA, its costs, and available alternatives, enabling employees to make more informed decisions about their health coverage during career transitions.

Mississippi enacts new law regulating telemedicine coverage

by Stacey Callaghan, Amanda Enyeart and Abby Higgins | Aug 12, 2025 | Digital Health, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

Mississippi has enacted SB 2415, ensuring that health insurance and employee benefit plans cover telemedicine services to the same extent as in-person medical consultations. The legislation specifies that all telemedicine must be real-time audio-visual unless using store-and-forward technology or remote patient monitoring.

The Resurgence of Provider-Sponsored Health Plans in the New Health Care Ecosystem

by Brad Dennis and Gary Scott Davis | Jul 2, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

To adapt to the evolving healthcare landscape, health systems are seeking to identify alternatives to their traditional hospital-centric models and shift towards patient-centered care delivery. As a result, provider-sponsored health plans (PSHPs) are gaining traction as a potential framework for health systems to curate care delivery in the newly decentralized model of healthcare.

In this article, Brad Dennis and Gary Scott Davis explore the challenges facing the hospital-centric model, the reemergence of PSHPs and the advantages of integrating healthcare delivery and insurance functions in a PSHP-based model.

Access the article.

Surprise Medical Billing Law ‘Not Working the Way We Want It to Work’

by Jeffrey Davis | May 20, 2024 | Executive Compensation, Health and Welfare Plans

A legislative fix to surprise medical billing is not working the way lawmakers imagined it would work. According to this Politico Pro article, private equity groups are disproportionately benefiting from the No Surprises Act, and the law may inadvertently lead to higher health insurance premiums.

Access the article.

Funding Employer-Sponsored Group Health Coverage: The Group Captive Solution

by Alden Bianchi, Lisa Kaderabek and Teal Trujillo | Dec 13, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 led to a sharp increase in employers self-funding their group health insurance plans, with the market tripling in size in the decade that followed. While larger employers can self-fund their group medical coverage in a relatively efficient manner, it does not work well for smaller employers. As year-over-year spending on healthcare in the United States outpaces growth in real gross domestic product by wide margins, employers of all sizes continue to seek to make group health insurance coverage available to their employees at a reasonable cost. Group captive-funded medical stop-loss insurance offers a way for smaller employers to obtain the full benefit of self-funding. This Special Report explains what group medical stop-loss captives are and how they are structured and regulated.

Access the report.

Fixing the ACA’s Family Glitch

by Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | Jul 13, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The “family glitch” was a regulatory oddity of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It required the affordability of an employer-sponsored health plan to be determined based solely on the cost of the plan to an individual employee, disregarding the costs to add family members to a plan. This resulted in many families being ineligible for marketplace premium subsidies when purchasing their own health insurance on exchanges. In October 2022, the US Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a final rule designed to fix the “family glitch.”

In this Bloomberg Law article, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo examine the rationale advanced by the IRS in support of its changed position in the matter of the “family glitch” and consider how the new position of the IRS might fare if challenged in the wake of West Virginia v. EPA.

Read the article.

Mental Health Parity, Quantitative Treatment Limitations, Employee Assistance Plans and the End of the COVID-19 Emergency

by Jacob Mattinson, Sarah Raaii, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | Mar 29, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

The Biden administration has announced its intention to end the COVID-19 National Emergency (NE) and the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023 (read our series introduction for more information). Among other things:

The NE and the PHE modified the rules governing financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The end of the NE and the PHE will require modifications to group health plans’ and health insurance issuers’ MHPAEA testing as it relates to financial requirements and quantitative treatment limits. The NE and the PHE also affect the design and operation of some employee assistance plans (EAPs).
The NE and the PHE allowed plan sponsors to expand coverage under excepted benefit EAPs in certain respects without risking their status as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-excepted benefits.

MHPAEA

MHPAEA requires that the financial requirements (such as coinsurance and copays) and quantitative treatment limits (such as visit limits) imposed on mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits cannot be more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a particular benefit classification. During the public health emergency period, group health plans and health insurance issuers were permitted to disregard certain items and services related to testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, when performing the “substantially all” and “predominant” tests. Absent this relief, the costs of covering COVID-19 testing items and services without cost-sharing would be the amounts allocated to medical/surgical benefits, thereby putting group health plans and health insurance issuers at risk of running afoul of MHPAEA quantitative treatment limits.

From and after the end of the PHE, group health plans and health insurance issuers must include the cost of covering COVID-19 tests, either diagnostic or over-the-counter, or testing-related services, when calculating MHPAEA quantitative treatment limits.

Action Items: Employers should revisit their MHPAEA compliance testing to ensure that the coverage of COVID-19 tests is properly accounted for in applying the relevant quantitative treatment limits. There is, however, no longer a requirement that a group health plan or health insurance issuer cover these services without charge.

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLANS

The end of the NE and the PHE could have various impacts on EAPs depending on the specific plan design. Employers may, for example, see a spike in the need for mental health support that could be met through EAP services. While the pandemic may be winding down, the mental health impacts of the past three years may continue for by many employees. Employers may need to continue to offer mental health services and resources through their EAPs, and potentially explore expanding mental health services through an EAP or otherwise, to support employees who are struggling with anxiety, depression or other mental health issues related to the pandemic.

Particular attention is required in the case of excepted benefit EAPs. Excepted benefit EAPs do not provide minimum essential coverage for Affordable Care [...]

Continue Reading

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

by Sarah Raaii | Sep 1, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

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.

What Should GCs Know About the Abortion Landscape?

by Sarah Raaii | Aug 19, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

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.

How Can Employers Protect Workers Who Seek Abortion Care?

by David Quinn Gacioch and Sarah Raaii | Aug 17, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

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.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS