Health and Welfare Plans Archives - Page 27 of 128

See What’s Next with McDermott+Consulting’s 340B Ligitation Tracking Tool

by Emily J. Cook and Rodney Whitlock | Jun 17, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The 340B program landscape is constantly shifting. Wednesday’s US Supreme Court American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision is of critical importance to hospitals that participate in the 340B program. The Court held that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) improperly imposed a payment cut of almost 30% on 340B drugs paid by Medicare. Yet, while this decision is significant, it is not the end of the litigation surrounding the payment cut. The case has been remanded for further deliberation, which will include a determination of the remedies.

McDermott+Consulting has launched the 340B Litigation Tracking Tool, an up-to-date resource following the 30+ state and federal 340B program legal challenges. No more searching online or sorting through your newsfeed for updates on important case developments. This tracker, available 24/7 and routinely monitored by our team, delivers concise updates to help you make informed risk analyses on what’s next for your business in the evolving 340B landscape.

View the 340B litigation tracking tool here.

Preparing for the Demise of Roe v. Wade and the Criminalization of Abortion in Some US States: Practical Considerations for a Post-Roe World

by David Quinn Gacioch, Stacey Callaghan, Dana McSherry, Caroline Reignley, Paul Thompson and Sarah Raaii | Jun 15, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

Sometime in the next several weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States will issue its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs). Based on the draft majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito that was leaked to Politico in early May, there is a significant chance that the Court will overrule Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Casey) by holding that there is no federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion and leaving individual states free to substantially restrict abortion or prohibit abortion altogether.

The effect of this likely decision on US companies would be substantial. Every US healthcare provider whose services include any aspect of family planning should give serious thought to how this likely new post-Roe reality will affect its offerings and operations. This includes not only those that provide pregnancy termination services (via surgical or pharmaceutical means, whether brick-and-mortar or telehealth/virtual), but also potentially those providing in vitro fertilization services, and conceivably even some contraceptive providers at some point down the line.

Read more here.

America’s Hospital Regulator Wasn’t Designed for a Pandemic

by Sandra M. DiVarco | Jun 14, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

According to this Politico article, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has had difficulty enforcing its own COVID-19-related hospital rules. The agency often lacks the necessary resources to make sure its regulations are followed. McDermott Partner Sandra M. DiVarco said small changes—like allowing patients to wear highly protective N95 face masks—that CMS publicizes are “not always very coordinated.”

Access the article.

Employers Explore Abortion Coverage Continuation

by Sarah Raaii and McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 1, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Employment, Executive Compensation, Health and Welfare Plans

While the United States awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which may overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal standard for abortion access, some states are considering setting their own standards that would ban or protect the medical procedure. This state-by-state rulemaking will cause some difficulty for employer plans, and employers are increasingly exploring ways to continue providing abortion coverage.

Read more here.

OSHA Announces Plan to ‘Expand Its Presence’ in Certain Healthcare Facilities Treating COVID-19 Patients

by Abigail M. Kagan and Lindsay Ditlow | May 26, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor

Between March 9, 2022, and June 9, 2022, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will “expand its presence” in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities that treat COVID-19 patients and that were previously cited or issued Hazard Alert Letters for alleged COVID-19 violations. OSHA’s stated purpose is to “target[] high-hazard healthcare facilities” to “verify and assess . . . compliance actions taken” by employers to rectify prior allegations related to COVID-19 safety violations. The initiative is focusing on employers’ “readiness to address any ongoing or future COVID-19 surges.”

Read more here.

Safe Harbor Issued for Reporting Healthcare Prices Under Transparency Rules

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 17, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury recently released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the implementation of certain reporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The FAQs were released to provide clarity on the required drug price disclosures identified in the Transparency in Coverage final rule (the Rule) issued on October 29, 2020. As described in this SHRM article, employers are responsible for making sure that these disclosures are ready and available.

Read more here.

ERIC Petitions US Supreme Court on Seattle Healthcare Case

by Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew Liazos | May 11, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

McDermott Will & Emery’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos, are co-counsel on a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). The petition calls for review of ERIC’s legal challenge to the City of Seattle’s hotel healthcare “play or pay” ordinance. The ordinance mandates hospitality employers make specified monthly healthcare expenditures for their covered local employees if their healthcare plans do not meet certain requirements. The petition demonstrates that Seattle’s ordinance is a clear attempt to control the benefits provided under medical plans in violation of the preemption provision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). This case is of significant national importance. Several other cities have proposed making similar changes, and complying with these types of ordinances will substantially constrain the ability of employers to control the terms of their medical plans on a uniform basis. ERIC’s petition is joined by several trade associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council and the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Read ERIC’s petition for writ of certiorari here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

California Updates COVID-19 Cal/OSHA ETS

by Michelle S. Strowhiro and Ludia Kwon | May 10, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor

On April 21, 2022, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s (Cal/OSHA) Standards Board approved the Third Readoption of the state’s COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Per Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-23-21, the Third Readoption will remain in effect for no longer than December 31, 2022. The Third Readoption makes some additional material changes and clarifications, including acceptable return-to-work criteria, elimination of certain cleaning and social distancing requirements, and creation of a “returned case” category of workers recovered from COVID-19. Employers in California should update their COVID-19 ETS policies to ensure continued compliance with Cal/OSHA’s changes in the Third Readoption.

Read about the Third Readopted ETS here.

‘Unprecedented Interest’ in Employer-Covered Abortion Travel

by Sarah Raaii | May 5, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor

If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (as suggested by a leaked draft on May 2), employers who want to provide abortion coverage to employees and their families could encounter serious challenges. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott’s Sarah G. Raaii noted that employers that provide travel expenses for abortions might encounter resistance from state laws like a Texas statue that permits citizens to sue abortion providers for abortions performed around six weeks.

“If a state wants to interpret this very broadly—and it seems that some of them have indicated that they do—to really just punish anyone involved even peripherally with providing abortion in the states, employers could potentially be at risk.” Raaii said.

Access the article.

Agencies Provide Guidance on Impending Transparency in Coverage Rule Implementation

by Marchan Clark and Jacob Mattinson | May 3, 2022 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

On April 19, 2022, the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the implementation of certain reporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The FAQs were released to provide clarity on the required drug price disclosures identified in the Transparency in Coverage final rule (the Rule) issued on October 29, 2020.

The Rule requires most non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers to: (1) upon request, disclose pricing information specific to participants, beneficiaries or enrollees (or their authorized representative) (collectively referred to herein as participants); and (2) provide public disclosures in machine-readable files regarding in-network, out-of-network and prescription drug prices. The Departments reiterated that the enforcement of the requirements related to machine-readable files disclosing in-network and out-of-network data will begin July 1, 2022 (enforcement of this part of the Rule related to prescription drugs has been delayed), and clear up confusion regarding reporting for certain alternative reimbursement arrangements.

Read more here.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS