SubscribeThere has been a flurry of class action lawsuits and settlements relating to the deficiency of required election notices under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). The notices provide employees and their beneficiaries who participate in an employer’s group health plan with the option to elect to continue their coverage following a COBRA qualifying event. A recent class action lawsuit illustrates the stakes and provides some valuable lessons.
US Department of Labor
Treasury, DOL and HHS Issue Landmark Mental Health Parity Proposed Rule
The US Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) recently issued much-anticipated proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) to better ensure that health plans allow access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits as easily as medical or surgical benefits. The proposed regulations reiterate the Departments’ focus on mental health parity and underscore the importance of compliance for health plan sponsors. They also come after many plans have been subject to audit by the Departments which focused heavily on MHPAEA compliance, leaving plan sponsors frustrated at the lack of guidance and inconsistent application of MHPAEA.
DOL Wage Rule for Immigrants and H-1B Visa Holders Could Be History
The Biden administration may eliminate a US Department of Labor rule that would have modified how the US government sets prevailing wages for H-1B professionals and employment-based green card applicants, according to this Forbes article. The Trump administration originally sought to use the wage rule to make it more challenging for foreign-born scientists and engineers to seek employment.
Tri-Agencies Address Preventive Services Coverage in the Wake of Braidwood
The US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) have released a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in response to Braidwood Mgmt. Inc. v. Becerra, a recent case that invalidated a portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) preventive services mandate. The FAQs aim to address inquiries from stakeholders, while also emphasizing the Departments’ opposition to the Braidwood ruling. The Departments urge plans and issuers to continue providing coverage for preventive services at no additional cost to patients.
Preparing for the End of the COVID-19 Emergency: Tri-Agencies Issue FAQs to Assist Plans and Issuers
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).
On March 29, 2023, the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (the Departments) issued a set of Frequently Asked Questions (available here), which answered questions from stakeholders relating to the various laws, regulations and other guidance enacted or adopted in connection with the NE and PHE. The FAQs include eight questions related to the anticipated end of the “Outbreak Period” on July 10, 2023, which is 60 days after the end of the NE and PHE on May 11 (rules regarding the Outbreak Period are set forth in our earlier articles here and here). Below are the highlights:
- Following the end of the PHE, plans and issuers can impose cost-sharing, prior authorization or other medical management requirements for COVID-19 diagnostic tests, although the Departments encourage plans not to do so.
- Plans and issuers are encouraged to notify plan participants of changes regarding COVID-19 diagnosis, testing and treatment. Special rules apply under which Summaries of Benefits and Coverage (SBCs) need not be amended mid-year.
- While plans and issuers will no longer be required to post prices for diagnostic tests furnished after May 11, they are nevertheless encouraged to do so.
- Plans must continue to cover vaccines that qualify as preventive services, without cost-sharing, when provided in-network.
- The FAQs provide examples relating to the application and termination of extended time periods for elections under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
- In what is a welcome surprise, the FAQs confirm that individuals covered by a High-Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) will remain Health Savings Account (HSA)-eligible until further notice even if the HDHP in which they are enrolled provides medical care services and items purchased related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19 prior to the satisfaction of the HDHP’s applicable minimum deductible.
To keep employers apprised of the rules and to assist with providing notice to plan participants of the changes that will accompany the end of the NE and PHE, the Department of Labor has issued two blog posts, which are available here and here.
Action Items: We urge plan sponsors to pay particular attention to notifying employees of the upcoming changes that will accompany the end of the PHE and NE and to ensure that participants covered under an HDHP understand that they may continue to contribute to their HSAs. Employers should consider communicating these changes to their employees.
For any questions regarding the end of the PHE and/or NE, please contact your regular McDermott lawyer or one of the authors.
Mental Health Parity, Quantitative Treatment Limitations, Employee Assistance Plans and the End of the COVID-19 Emergency
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
District Court Vacates Provisions of No Surprises Act Final Rule
On February 6, a US district court in Texas vacated provisions of the No Surprises Act final rule related to the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for determining payment for out-of-network services.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Texas Medical Association, which had brought suit against the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury over the IDR process. The district court held that provisions of the final rule were contrary to law and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order vacated the provisions of the final rule that require IDR entities to look at the qualifying payment amount first and consider other factors only if those other factors are not already accounted for in the qualifying payment amount.
The departments have not yet filed a notice of appeal or amended their sub-regulatory guidance to align with the district court’s order.
Proposed Universal Contraceptive Coverage in Response to Roe Reversal
The US Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (the Departments) recently issued a proposed rule to eliminate a moral exemption to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive mandate and establish an “individual contraceptive arrangement” to permit individuals to obtain contraceptive services at no cost in instances in which their employer does not offer coverage based on its religious beliefs. This is the latest development in the Biden administration’s efforts to increase reproductive health access after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Departments previously issued a reminder to health plans and insurers that the ACA requires contraceptive coverage at no additional cost to individuals.
Employer Group Urges Justices To Hear Seattle Benefits Row
An employer group says the federal government erred in arguing that a Seattle benefits mandate for hotel workers doesn’t conflict with federal law. According to this Law360 article, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) asked the US Supreme Court to review a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that backed the Seattle ordinance despite arguments from the US Department of Labor that the law doesn’t contradict the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. McDermott’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos represent ERIC.
Return to Work | Managing Your Workforce During Periods of Uncertainty
How can employers manage their workforces during periods of economic uncertainty? In this McDermott webinar, Lindsay Ditlow, Cristell Fortune, Abigail Kagan and Marjorie Soto Garcia offer perspective on the following topics:
- Communicating the transition
- The impact on contractual and other obligations
- WARN Act, furloughs, layoffs and salary reductions
- Strategies for unionized workforces
