Employers seeking to provide their employees with abortion services are facing a dizzying patchwork of laws that differ from state to state, according to this Corporate Counsel article. McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said companies with employees in multiple states “would really need to do a state-by-state analysis of what the abortion laws are, whether and under what circumstances abortion is legal in most states.”
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will generate a minefield of legal and criminal implications for healthcare providers, according to this Healthcare Dive article. McDermott Partners Stacey Callaghan and David Gacioch offer insight into what these restrictive state laws could mean for providers.
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has left employers—and employees—with more questions than answers. While many employers have promised to pay for their employees to travel across state lines for an abortion, it’s unclear if employers might be sued for doing so. In this USA TODAY article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said employers may point to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion on the “constitutional right to interstate travel” for support.
The patchwork of US federal and state rules governing abortion insurance coverage will become more complicated following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In this MarketWatch article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said the situation has employers on edge.
“We’ve had a huge influx of employers reaching out and asking, ‘What should I be doing? Are there risks?’” Raaii said.
If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (as suggested by a leaked draft on May 2), employers who want to provide abortion coverage to employees and their families could encounter serious challenges. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott’s Sarah G. Raaii noted that employers that provide travel expenses for abortions might encounter resistance from state laws like a Texas statue that permits citizens to sue abortion providers for abortions performed around six weeks.
“If a state wants to interpret this very broadly—and it seems that some of them have indicated that they do—to really just punish anyone involved even peripherally with providing abortion in the states, employers could potentially be at risk.” Raaii said.
Healthcare and life sciences lawyers will likely have plenty of work in 2022 thanks to pending legislative and regulatory actions throughout the healthcare, health insurance, and drug and device industries.
According to this Law360 article, surprise billing, abortion and drug pricing are some of the major issues facing lawmakers and regulators in the year ahead. McDermott Partner Michael Ryan noted that changes to the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) also could be in order.
As federal benefits regulators turn their focus toward plans’ mental health offerings and California lawmakers expand plans’ obligations in that area, now is a great time for employers to ensure their plan approaches mental health treatment the same way as traditional medical care.
In a recent article by Law360, McDermott partner Judith Wethall helps explain the importance of mental health parity in benefits plans.
As presidential hopefuls bemoan the high cost of healthcare, McDermott’s Ted Becker imagines a stack of lawsuits pushed toward corporations and insurance companies. If workers can use the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to challenge 401(k) plans’ fees and investments, why can’t they use it to sue over how their health insurance plans are managed?
In a Q&A recently published on Law360, Becker discusses his prediction that health and welfare plan management suits will be the next frontier for ERISA plaintiffs, and how McDermott is preparing clients.
On October 10, 2018 President Trump signed two bills that ban “gag clauses” in pharmacy contracts. Congress passed the two bills—one for Medicare prescription drug plans (“Know the Lowest Price Act”) that will go into effect in January 2020, and another for commercial employer-based and individual policies (“Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act”) effective immediately—by almost unanimous vote in September 2018.
While many states have already prohibited the use of these clauses, this is the first such action on a federal level.
Gag clauses are sometimes found in contracts between pharmacies and insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers or group health plans and bar pharmacists from telling customers that they could save money by paying cash for their prescriptions rather than using their health insurance. If pharmacists violate the gag rule, they risk penalties and/or contract termination. Under the new legislation, pharmacists are not required to tell patients about the lower cost option, but they also cannot be contractually prohibited from engaging in the cost conversation.
The legislation is consistent with the position of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which, in May of this year, issued guidance stating that “gag clauses” are unacceptable in the Medicare Part D program.
Originally published in the Health & Life Sciences News blog.
To recruit and retain top talent, employers often offer benefits more generous than required under the law. Such benefits include unlimited vacation, paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave. However, a recent US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit filed against Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (Estee Lauder) reveals how even the most well-intentioned of programs can result in a discrimination lawsuit.
Subscribe
