On April 26, 2024, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule (press release, fact sheet, FAQs) reinterpreting Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, or any combination thereof, in a health program or activity, any part of which is receiving federal financial assistance. The rule, which has staggered effectivity dates starting on July 5, 2024, largely finalizes the policies as proposed in HHS’s August 2022 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including clarifying protections for gender-affirming care, as provided by group health plans, carriers and third-party administrators under administrative-services-only (ASO) arrangements.
Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, or any combination thereof, in a health program or activity, any part of which is receiving federal financial assistance.
On May 6, 2024, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published final regulations (final regulations) implementing Section 1557 (Our summary and overview of the final regulations is available here.) Entities that are subject to Section 1557 (covered entities) include hospitals, health clinics, health insurance issuers, state Medicaid agencies and community health centers. While group health plans are not themselves covered entities unless they receive federal financial assistance (e.g., certain Medicare Part D programs and Employer Group Waiver Plans), carriers that provide administrative services to group health plans may themselves be covered entities if they receive federal financial assistance (e.g., by selling Medicare Advantage products).
Reversing prior law, the final regulations unambiguously prohibit categorical coverage exclusions or limitations for health services related to gender transition or other gender-affirming care. OCR finds support for this change in the US Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Equal Employment Act prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation. But prohibiting categorical coverage exclusions is not the same thing as requiring covered entities to provide access to gender-affirming care under all circumstances. There are limits; covered entities must not:
[D]eny or limit services based on gender identity or sex assigned at birth, adopt any policy of treating individuals differently on the basis of sex, including to the extent it prevents an individual from engaging in a health program or activity consistent with the individual’s gender identity, or deny or limit services sought for gender transition or other gender-affirming care based on sex assigned at birth or gender identity.
The provision would outlaw blanket bans on both gender-affirming care itself and on specific gender-affirming procedures (like facial feminization surgery). But it would also prohibit plans or carriers that qualify as covered entities from covering breast reconstruction for cancer treatment, or hormones to treat post-menopause symptoms, without also covering these procedures to treat gender dysphoria.
The final regulations do not interfere with individualized clinical judgment about the appropriate course of care for a patient. (The preamble makes further claims that OCR has a general practice of deferring to a clinician’s judgment about whether a particular service is medically appropriate for an individual, or whether the clinician has the appropriate expertise to provide care.) A provider’s belief that gender transition or other gender-affirming care can never be beneficial, or its compliance with a state or local law that reflects a similar judgment, is not a sufficient basis for a judgment that a health service is never clinically appropriate, however.
The 2016 final Section 1557 regulations were successfully challenged in Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell (N.D. [...]
On April 15, 2024, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) announced the establishment of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Clinical Trial Innovation (C3TI). C3TI will serve as the central support hub for innovative approaches to clinical trials designed to improve the quality and efficiency of drug development and regulatory decision-making. Following a public solicitation of comments on the barriers of clinical trial designs, FDA determined that the establishment of C3TI would enhance CDER’s ability to address those barriers and foster innovation.
On April 22, 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a final rule that will require long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to satisfy minimum nurse staffing standards with the goal of addressing patient quality of care and safety concerns. The final rule is anticipated to result in approximately 80% of LTCFs needing to add nursing staff. LTCFs will also be required to conduct periodic assessments of their resources and capabilities and to make staffing adjustments as needed to address residents’ acuity.
The New York State fiscal year 2024 – 2025 budget institutes a new tax on health plans, including insurers and managed care organizations. This tax has been garnering attention for its promise to yield $4 billion for New York State. The expected revenue from the tax, however, is set to come not from the health plans operating within the state but from the federal government. California implemented a similar scheme last year.
Democratic lawmakers recently sent a letter to the US Office of Personnel Management urging the Biden administration to enhance the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program’s in vitro fertilization coverage. The letter comes as some states have signaled an interest in enforcing personhood rights in treatments involving embryos, according to this Federal Times article.
“When you can’t receive the services within a state, obviously it doesn’t do you much good if your [insurance] plan still technically covers them,” said Sarah Raaii.
In a recent On the Subject (available here), we reported on the impact of the final rule (final rule) interpreting Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on self-funded group health plans that contract with licensed health insurance issuers to provide administrative services. That article considered instances in which neither the plan sponsor nor the group health plan was a covered entity for Section 1557 purposes. This post starts by assuming that either the plan sponsor or the group health plan is or at least may be a covered entity.
Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, or any combination thereof, in a health program or activity, any part of which is receiving federal financial assistance. The final rule makes clear an employer’s employment practices, including the sponsorship of a group health plan, are not generally subject to the rule. Thus, an employer does not become subject to Section 1557 by simply offering a group health plan, and a group health plan is not a covered entity where it does not receive federal financial assistance. The preamble cites examples of plans that may (or may not) receive federal financial assistance: Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWPs), Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Part D plans.
Plan Sponsor/Covered Entity
There are clearly instances in which a plan sponsor is itself a covered entity for Section 1557 purposes. This is the case wherever the plan sponsor is itself principally engaged in providing or administering health programs and activities (e.g., a hospital that accepts Medicare). Where that is the case, all the entities’ operations are also subject to Section 1557. The reference to “all” an entities’ operations usually conjures up images of separate legal entities under common control (e.g., a subsidiary or affiliate of the plan sponsor). But is the covered entity’s group health plan part of the covered entity’s operations? (See, e.g., T.S. v. Heart of CarDon, LLC, holding that Section 1557 applies to all the activities of a covered entity plan sponsor, including its group health plan, regardless of whether the group health plan itself received federal financial assistance.) In the context of the final rule, we are not sure that it matters. The plan sponsor is itself a covered entity that is subject to, and will need to comply with, Section 1557 irrespective of the status of the plan.
Part D and EGWPs
According to the preamble to the final rule, EGWPs, Medicare Advantage plans and Part D plans are covered entities where the plan receives federal financial assistance. EGWPs are types of Medicare Advantage plans or Part D prescription drug plans that qualify for waivers of certain Medicare regulations. Prior to the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, employer-sponsored Part D coverage was the primary source of coverage for retirees. EGWPs, which came later, provided a more flexible alternative for employers seeking the benefits that could be captured through waivers. Whether the EGWP, Medicare Advantage plan or [...]
In recent years, states have been exploring innovative avenues to address rising healthcare costs and ensure access to affordable medication for their residents. One idea gaining traction involves pursuing authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for importation programs under Section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to import prescription drugs from Canada. These “Section 804 Importation Programs” (SIPs), if approved, would enable states to import prescription drugs from Canada, often at significantly lower prices than those available in the United States.
After years of legal and other challenges to the rule, on January 5, 2024, the FDA authorized Florida’s SIP proposal. While eight other states have laws that permit drug importation, and six of them are seeking FDA approval, this is the first time that the FDA has approved a state entity to import drugs from another country. Following Florida’s example, Colorado and other states are moving forward with their own SIP plans.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced in March that it would allow health plans under Medicare Part D (the Medicare prescription drug benefit) to cover Wegovy and other weight-loss medications if they receive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an additional medically accepted indication.
In Wegovy’s case, the FDA recently approved an additional indication “to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events (such as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal strokes) in adults with established cardiovascular disease and either obesity or overweight” in combination with a reduced caloric diet and increased physical activity. As a result, Wegovy can be available for Medicare beneficiaries who have an established cardiovascular disease and are either overweight or obese. Part D coverage is still not available for weight-loss medications in beneficiaries who do not have the additional medically accepted indication.
On March 18, 2024, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued an update to its December 1, 2022, bulletin titled “Use of Online Tracking Technologies by HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates.” In releasing the 2024 update, OCR stated that its purpose was to “increase clarity for regulated entities and the public.” While the update appears to narrow the scope of what OCR considers to be HIPAA-protected health information (PHI) in the context of online tracking technologies, it largely reconfirms prior guidance in the 2022 bulletin and will likely have limited practical impact for HIPAA-covered entities and business associates that have already heeded the 2022 bulletin.
Subscribe
