[firm] blog logo

Departments Solicit Comments regarding Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 Prescription Drug Reporting Requirements

Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the ?Ç£CAA?Ç¥), employer-sponsored group health plans will be required to submit to the DOL and/or Treasury Department a new annual report containing information pertaining to plan participation and prescription drug coverage provided under the plan during the previous plan year (the ?Ç£Rx Report?Ç¥). Among other items, the Rx Report must include information regarding (i) claims paid under the plan for the 50 most frequently dispensed brand prescription drugs (?Ç£Claims Paid Items?Ç¥), (ii) annual spending for the 50 most costly prescription drugs (?Ç£Spending Items?Ç¥), and (iii) rebates, fees, and other remuneration paid by drug manufacturers to the plan, its administrators, or service providers (?Ç£Rebate Items?Ç¥).  The first Rx Report is due by December 27, 2021, and each subsequent Rx Report is due by each June 1. Recently, the DOL, Treasury Department, and HHS (the ?Ç£Agencies?Ç¥) jointly issued a ?Ç£request for information?Ç¥ (the ?Ç£RFI?Ç¥) seeking public… Continue Reading

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

Ordinary Employee Benefits Issues That Can Cause Extraordinary Problems in M&A Deals

Employee benefits rarely drive corporate transactions, but if the benefits of a target company are not reviewed carefully, they can sometimes derail the transaction.  Even some of the most routine facets of benefit plan administration can result in significant potential financial exposure (e.g., additional employer contributions, taxes, penalties, and fees as well as fees associated with the preparation and filing of IRS and DOL correction program applications) that could negatively affect the overall value of the target company. By identifying issues early in the transaction, the seller can prevent costly purchase price reductions and identify issues that need correction, while the buyer can avoid overpaying for a target and ensure that representation and warranty insurance will be available to cover potential claims. Some of those routine compliance issues include, but are not limited to, the following: Failing to timely file an annual Form 5500.  The DOL can assess a penalty… Continue Reading

Inaccurate Leave of Absence Provisions May Lead to Stop Loss Carrier Denial of Claims

For employees on a leave of absence (?Ç£LOA?Ç¥) or a furlough, employers often extend group health plan coverage during the LOA or furlough for a prescribed time period. With regard to group health plans that are considered to be ?Ç£self-insured,?Ç¥ generally, the employer?ÇÖs reinsurer, or stop loss carrier, is only required to cover claims (above the policy?ÇÖs self-insured retention level) incurred for a covered person based on the written terms of the plan. In other words, the policy underwrites the coverage that is provided under the plan document. If extended coverage during a LOA or furlough is not expressly set out in the plan document, a stop loss carrier could seek to deny claims incurred during that period. It is thus recommended that employers with self-insured plans review their health plan documents to ensure consistency with administrative practices regarding coverage during LOAs and furloughs and coordinate as necessary with the… Continue Reading

Regulations Provide for More Cost Transparency in Health Coverage

The federal Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the ?Ç£Departments?Ç¥) have jointly issued final regulations that are intended to provide for more transparency in health coverage (the ?Ç£Regulations?Ç¥). The Regulations have important implications for employer sponsors of certain group health plans (?Ç£Plans?Ç¥) and health insurers. The Regulations do not apply to health plans that are grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act, health reimbursement arrangements, certain other account-based group health plans, or short-term limited duration insurance. The Regulations require two key forms of disclosures (collectively, the ?Ç£Disclosures?Ç¥) in order to provide for this improved transparency: Self-Service Disclosure. First, the Regulations require Plans and insurers in the individual and group markets to disclose certain cost-sharing information upon request to a participant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or his or her authorized representative), including (a) an estimate of the individual?ÇÖs cost-sharing liability for covered items or services furnished by a… Continue Reading

Cross-Plan Offsetting Practice is Challenged in Class Action Lawsuit

This class action lawsuit, styled Scott, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 14, 2020. This lawsuit follows the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Peterson v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. that was issued last year. In Scott, the plaintiffs, who were participants in the plans at issue in Peterson, filed, on behalf of a class of plaintiffs (the ?Ç£Class?Ç¥), a class action against UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, ?Ç£UHC?Ç¥), in their capacities as an insurer and/or third-party claims administrator of employer-sponsored group health plans. The lawsuit alleges the breach of UHC?ÇÖs fiduciary duties under ERISA as related to UHC?ÇÖs practice of ?Ç£cross-plan offsetting.?Ç¥ The Class consists of participants and beneficiaries in all group health plans that are administered by UHC and contain ?Ç£cross-plan offsetting?Ç¥ (collectively, the… Continue Reading

COVID-19 Relief ?Çô Added Flexibility to Code Section 125 Cafeteria Plans

Prospective Mid-Year Election Changes IRS Notice 2020-29 allows employers to amend cafeteria plans to permit employees to make the following prospective mid-year election changes (including an initial election) for employer-sponsored health coverage, health flexible spending accounts (?Ç£FSAs?Ç¥), and dependent care FSAs during calendar year 2020, regardless of whether the basis for the election change satisfies the ?Ç£change in status?Ç¥ rules under Treas. Reg. ?º 1.125-4: Make a new election for employer-sponsored health coverage, if the employee initially declined to elect employer-sponsored health coverage; Revoke an existing election for employer-sponsored health coverage and make a new election to enroll in different health coverage sponsored by the same employer (including changing enrollment from self-only to family coverage); Revoke an existing election for employer-sponsored health coverage, provided the employee attests in writing that the employee is enrolled, or immediately will enroll, in other health coverage not sponsored by the employer; and Revoke an… Continue Reading

CARES Act: Calculating Qualified Health Plan Expenses for Purposes of the Employee Retention Credit

Under the CARES Act, employers are eligible to claim an employee retention credit if certain conditions are met (see our prior blog post on the employee retention credit, as well as other employee benefits and executive compensation changes made by the CARES Act, here). The tax credit is equal to 50% of ?Ç£qualified wages?Ç¥ paid to employees of up to $10,000. Qualified wages include (i) wages actually paid to covered employees (other than qualified paid sick and family leave wages for which a credit is allowed under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act) and (ii) the ?Ç£qualified health plan expenses?Ç¥ allocable to such employees. On May 11, 2020, the IRS published new FAQs clarifying how qualified health plan expenses should be calculated for purposes of the employee retention credit. Notably, the FAQs provide guidance on how to calculate such expenses when an employer sponsors more than one health plan (e.g.,… Continue Reading

Employee Benefits as Payroll Costs under the Paycheck Protection Program

Businesses that received a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (?Ç£PPP?Ç¥) are eligible for forgiveness of that loan if, among other things, the loan proceeds are used to cover ?Ç£payroll costs?Ç¥ incurred over the eight-week period after the loan is made. Payroll costs, capped at $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee (i.e., $15,384 over the eight-week period), are broadly defined to include, among other things: Salary, wages, commissions, or tips; Employee benefits costs, such as for vacation or paid family or medical leave (other than wages for which a credit is received under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act), group health care costs, retirement plan contributions, and severance benefits; and State and local taxes assessed on employee compensation. As of the date of this posting, no guidance has been issued by the IRS or the Department of Treasury to further clarify what specific items qualify as payroll costs.… Continue Reading

Fifth Circuit Holds Texas Prompt Pay Act Does Not Apply to Self-Insured Plans

The Texas Prompt Pay Act (the ?Ç£Act?Ç¥) requires healthcare insurers to make coverage determinations and pay claims within a specified time or face penalties. The parent of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (?Ç£BCBSTX?Ç¥) challenged, in part, whether the Act would apply to self-funded plans in which BCBSTX acts as the third-party administrator. The federal district court held that the Act does not apply to self-funded plan administrators. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision. The court?ÇÖs opinion in Health Care Service Corp. v. Methodist Hosp. of Dallas, No.15-10154 (5th Cir. Feb. 10, 2016) is available here.

October 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives