providers
Subscribe to providers's Posts

Fired for Having an Abortion? Unlikely, but It’s Complicated

Could a worker be fired for having an abortion? According to this Insider article, workplace laws would likely protect pregnant people from discrimination. McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said employers should make sure abortion health plan coverage does not conflict with federal laws.

“Incorporating abortion benefits into an employer’s existing health plan might help mitigate worker privacy concerns,” Raaii said, “since health plans are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).”

Read more here.




Abortion Questions Swirl Over Health Lawyers in Post-Roe World

Following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, health lawyers have been busy making sense of the legal implications of the court’s landmark ruling. In this Law360 article, McDermott Partners Stacey Callaghan and David Gacioch offer insight into the myriad of questions they’ve received from hospitals, pharmacies, telemedicine platforms, investors and other players in the industry.

“The field against whom [abortion restrictions] can be enforced becomes so much broader,” Gacioch said. “It’s such a sea change.”

Access the article.




Workers’ Abortion Privacy at Risk as Texas Targets Employer Aid

A group of conservative Texas lawmakers is warning employers of potential civil or criminal consequences if they offer out-of-state abortion access to their employees. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott Partner Scott Weinstein said many companies offering reproductive healthcare benefits are making sure such benefits aren’t tied to a particular procedure.

“The goal is not to know,” Weinstein said.

Read more here.




Complex Patchwork of Laws Await Companies Offering Out-of-State Abortion Travel

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.”

Access the article.




State Abortion Bans Signal Chaos for Providers

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.

Access the article.




Leniency on Implementation Timetables for Surprise Billing and Insurer Price Transparency

The Biden administration is giving insurers more time to follow the insurer price transparency rule and the ban on surprise billing. Federal regulators will delay enforcement of machine-readable file provider rates until July 1, rather than the start of 2022. In this article published in Modern Healthcare, McDermott Partner Kate McDonald noted that the initial timeline was “very aggressive.”

Read more here.




Requirements Related to Surprise Billing: Policy Update

The US Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor, and the Office of Personnel Management issued an Interim Final Rule with comment implementing portions of the No Surprises Act, legislation enacted in December 2020 that bars surprise billing beginning January 1, 2022. Under the law, payers and providers (including hospitals, facilities, individual practitioners and air ambulance providers) are prohibited from billing patients more than in-network cost-sharing amounts in emergency and non-emergency circumstances. This IFR establishes regulations defining the payment methodology. The regulation proposes the methodology payers must use to determine cost sharing; the information payers must share with out-of-network providers; the process for submitting and receiving consumer complaints; and the format and details of the notice and consent requirements.

Read more here.




The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: The Supreme Court Decision

by Christopher M. Jedrey, Joel L. Michaels, Susan M. Nash, Paul W. Radensky and Eric Zimmerman

While the Supreme Court of the United States has in large part resolved questions regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, participants in the health care industry should prepare for ongoing uncertainty in the manner and degree to which states will participate in the expansion of Medicaid.

To read the full article, click here.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES