The DOL and UnitedHealthcare (“UHC”) recently reached a settlement agreement for UHC’s alleged violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act (the “MHPAEA”). Under the MHPAEA, employer-sponsored group health plans and health insurance issuers that provide mental health or substance use disorder (“MH/SUD”) benefits are prohibited from imposing less favorable benefit limitations on those benefits than on medical/surgical benefits. In its investigation, the DOL found that UHC, among other things, “systematically reimburse[d] participants and beneficiaries for out-of-network mental health services in a more restrictive manner than for out-of-network medical and surgical services.” This case is another indication that MHPAEA enforcement is a high priority for the DOL. As discussed in our prior blog posts here and here, the MHPAEA requires employer-sponsored group health plans that impose nonquantitative treatment limitations (“NQTLs”) on MH/SUD benefits to perform and document a comparative analysis of the design and application of NQTLs. This… Continue Reading
As discussed in our prior blog posts, available here, here, and here, an employer must maintain documentation demonstrating that its group health plan is compliant with mental health and substance use disorder parity rules. The DOL has made compliance with these rules a high priority, and DOL enforcement efforts have begun. Employers should follow up with their medical, network, prescription drug, and other third-party service providers to define expectations and set deadlines for the production of information that employers need for the required reporting. Given the amount of detail, effort, and coordination that this compliance documentation requires, employers should ensure that a compliant report can be timely provided if there is a DOL inquiry.
Court Finds Exclusion for Autism Treatments Violates the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act
In Doe v. United Behavioral Health, No. 4:19-CV-07316-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) a federal district court in California recently considered a plaintiff?ÇÖs claim that an exclusion from coverage for ?Ç£applied behavior analysis?Ç¥ and ?Ç£intensive behavioral therapies?Ç¥ (the ?Ç£ABA/IBT Exclusion?Ç¥) used to assist children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (?Ç£Autism?Ç¥) violated the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (the ?Ç£Parity Act?Ç¥). The plaintiff, as the representative of her minor son who was diagnosed with Autism, was covered under an employer-sponsored, self-funded group health plan subject to ERISA.?á The court held that the ABA/IBT Exclusion violated the Parity Act for two reasons. First, the court found that the ABA/IBT Exclusion, on its face, created a separate treatment limitation applicable only to services for a mental health condition (in this case, Autism). Second, the court concluded that the ABA/IBT Exclusion constituted a more restrictive limitation for a mental health condition than… Continue Reading
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the ?Ç£CAA?Ç¥) requires an employer-sponsored group health plan that imposes nonquantitative treatment limitations (?Ç£NQTLs?Ç¥) on mental health or substance use disorder benefits to perform and document a comparative analysis of the design and application of NQTLs. For example, a plan that imposes prior authorization requirements on any mental health or substance use disorder benefits would need to document: (i) all the benefits that require prior authorization; (ii) the factors used to determine which benefits were subject to prior authorization, such as excessive utilization or high variability in cost per episode of care, and whether any factors were given more weight than others and why; (iii) the sources used to define the factors, such as internal claims analysis or national accreditation standards; and (iv) that the process, strategies, and evidentiary standards used in applying prior authorization requirements are comparable and no more stringently applied to mental… Continue Reading