In this “Trending in Telehealth” installment, Amanda Enyeart and Jay Hyun Lee of McDermott’s Healthcare Group highlight a new Pennsylvania law that requires health insurance coverage for telehealth and in-home program services for pregnant and postpartum women.
The McDermott+ Check-Up features updates on healthcare legislative and regulatory activities that could impact health insurers, group health plan sponsors, healthcare providers and others in the health benefits industry. This post covers a recent Federal Trade Commission report on anticompetitive behaviors by pharmacy benefit managers as well as recent Senate hearings on medical debt and healthcare transparency.
On July 1, 2024, the US Department of Labor (DOL) submitted final regulations to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), implementing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) as most recently amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). The CAA added a requirement that plans and issuers perform and document comparative analyses of the design and application of nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) on mental health and substance use disorder benefits (MH/SUD) and medical and surgical (M/S) benefits. Submission to the CBO is the last step in the process of issuing a binding, final rule. The agency ordinarily acts on these submissions within 90 days, but it is widely anticipated that the final rule will be issued sooner.
The final regulations implement proposed regulations issued in July 2023, which were widely commented on. Our previous content explaining the proposed regulations, including a series of blog posts commenting on the comments, is available here.
To call the proposed rule contentious is an understatement, and the stakes for group health plan sponsors that provide mental health benefits are significant. Many comments on the proposed regulations asked the regulators to withdraw the proposed rule and to reconsider the issue anew. While the chance of that happening was always remote, it is now clear that this is not going to happen. There will shortly be final regulations. Recognizing this to be the case, here are six items in the proposed regulations that we would like to see changed or clarified.
MHPAEA generally provides that financial requirements and treatment limitations imposed on MH/SUD benefits cannot be more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all M/S benefits in a classification. The 2013 final regulations established the following classifications for this purpose: inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. “Treatment limitations” can be either quantitative treatment limitations (QTLs) (e.g., visit limits) or NQTLs (i.e., concurrent review). The rules for the testing of QTLs set out in the 2013 final regulations include detailed numerical standards, which have spawned a cottage industry for testing services.
The proposed regulations would impose quantitative testing requirements on NQTLs. This is at least modestly counterintuitive. It would also make an already complex testing rule materially more complicated. It is our hope that the DOL, US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of the Treasury (the Departments) see fit to back away from this requirement.
The proposed regulations establish a three-prong test that plans and issuers must pass to impose an NQTL in a classification. To qualify, an NQTL:
Health plan fiduciary issues have taken on increased urgency following a new wave of Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs’ firms. Sarah Raaii and Alden Bianchi recently joined the Moving to Value Alliance, a healthcare nonprofit, for a podcast episode focused on how group health plan sponsors and third-party service providers to group health plans can comply with the new fiduciary requirements enacted under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA). They also discussed what health plan fiduciaries can do to ensure they fulfill their responsibilities to beneficiaries.
One year on from the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Medicare restrictions on telehealth that Congress waived to allow for and expand the use of telehealth and other forms of virtual care are set to expire. Congress has already acted twice to extend the waivers, most recently in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which extended them until the end of this calendar year. Thus, starting on January 1, 2025, these waivers will disappear without further Congressional action. The uncertainty about whether Congress will again extend the telehealth waivers (and for how long) will create numerous questions and cause confusion for health plans, patients and providers.
To adapt to the evolving healthcare landscape, health systems are seeking to identify alternatives to their traditional hospital-centric models and shift towards patient-centered care delivery. As a result, provider-sponsored health plans (PSHPs) are gaining traction as a potential framework for health systems to curate care delivery in the newly decentralized model of healthcare.
In this article, Brad Dennis and Gary Scott Davis explore the challenges facing the hospital-centric model, the reemergence of PSHPs and the advantages of integrating healthcare delivery and insurance functions in a PSHP-based model.
A question in response to last week’s post on self-funding of employer group health plans assumed that stop-loss coverage under a level-funded plan could be provided under a group captive medical captive. However, it cannot (at least not without first obtaining a prohibited transaction exemption from the US Department of Labor (DOL)). While group medical stop-loss coverage can be structured to avoid the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibited transaction rules by scrupulously avoiding contact with ERISA plan assets in the plan’s stop-loss layer, it is not possible to prevent such contact in level-funded products.
The early years of group captives saw no shortage of handwringing over fundamental compliance issues. For example: Are group captives multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) (and should they be regulated as such)? To what extent are states free to constrain or restrain their operation? And which state insurance licensing laws apply?
For the most part, these and other compliance-related questions have been answered, if not completely, then at least substantially so. There is now broad agreement that the group medical stop-loss captive rests on a sound legal and regulatory foundation, which we explained at length in our Special Report. When properly structured, they are not MEWAs; states are free to regulate the stop-loss policy, and the fronting carrier must be licensed in each state in which the captive operates (i.e., where plan participants reside). Critical to their operation, however, is that the group medical stop-loss captive itself does not traffic in plan assets. This means that participant contributions, which are always plan assets, must never be applied to the purchase of stop-loss coverage.
The treatment of stop loss premiums, and their status as plan assets, are set out in two DOL Advisory Opinions:
Advisory Opinion 92-02
A stop-loss insurance policy purchased by an employer sponsoring a self-insured welfare benefit plan to which employees did not contribute is not an asset of the plan if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include that the insurance proceeds from the policies are payable only to the plan sponsor, which is the named insured under the policy, and no representations are made that the policy will be used to pay benefits.
Advisory Opinion 2015-02A
Where a stop-loss policy is purchased by a plan that includes participant contributions, the stop-loss policy would not be a plan asset if the facts surrounding the purchase of the stop-loss policy satisfies Advisory Opinion 92-02 and if the employer puts in place an accounting system that ensures that the payment of premiums for the stop-loss policy includes no employee contributions. Also, the stop-loss policy must reimburse the plan sponsor only if the plan sponsor pays claims under the plans from its own assets so that the plan sponsor will never receive any reimbursement from the insurer for claim amounts paid with participant contributions.
In the above-cited Special Report, we provided the following example of how an employer might comply where, as is typically the case, the [...]
Continue Reading
In December 2023, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted a Model Bulletin on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems by Insurers. The model bulletin reminds insurance carriers that they must comply with all applicable insurance laws and regulations (e.g., prohibitions against unfair trade practices) when making decisions that impact consumers, including when those decisions are made or supported by advanced technologies, such as AI systems. To date, 11 states have adopted the model bulletin, thereby applying the standards to insurers that operate in the states.
In a recent article in Managed Healthcare Executive, Peter Wehrwein examines the trend of self-funding of group health benefits by smaller employers who used to depend mainly or entirely on fully insured programs.
The shift to self-funding, the article explains, is grounded in the Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA), which exempts self-funded plans from state health insurance mandates, and in the Affordable Care Act, which strictly regulates small group and individual health insurance policies. Wehrwein presents the issues from the perspective of state and federal policymakers and regulators, which the article characterizes as “worrisome.” But what of the perspective of small employers?
Healthcare costs are rising at rates that are well in excess of the growth of real gross domestic product. This appears unsustainable, but these costs nevertheless keep climbing inexorably. For employers, the pressure to do something is compelling.
The article claims that self-funding is more expensive than fully insured coverage. But compared to what fully insured coverage, exactly? By definition, many small employers can only purchase coverage in the small-group market. This is, however, the very market these same employers are fleeing, and they are doing so precisely because it is too expensive. Indeed, the prohibitive cost of small-group market coverage is why individual coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements have failed to gain widespread acceptance, particularly in large urban environments.
Wehrwein correctly identifies two options for self-funding: group medical captives and level funding, both of which he views as problematic. Small employers appear to disagree, however, based on their actions. In their view, these options instead represent viable options in their quest to provide competitive group health coverage to their employees. The two options for self-funding identified in the article are fundamentally different solutions that are appropriate for different cohorts of small employers.
Group Medical Captives (50 – 200 Covered Lives)
The term “captive” insurer traditionally referred to a “single parent” captive, which is a subsidiary of an operating company/parent that insures the risks of the operating company/parent and in some instances its affiliates. Historically, single-parent captives insured property and casualty risks and workers’ compensation, but they have more recently been pressed into service to cover employee welfare plan risks.
A group captive allows a group of unrelated employers to form a collective insurance company to manage some portions of their risks. Where, as is the case here, the risk is most often medical stop-loss coverage, the arrangement is referred to colloquially as a “medical stop-loss group captive.” For an extended discussion of medical stop-loss group captive funding arrangements and their accompanying legal and regulatory issues, please see our Special Report.
There is some debate over what size employer might most benefit from participation in a medical stop-loss group captive. While the conventional wisdom is that 200 covered lives is the sweet spot, credible estimates go as low as 50 covered lives. Whatever the appropriate number, medical stop-loss captives can in the right circumstances offer substantial savings when compared to fully insured coverage. [...]
Continue Reading
May 11, 2024, marked one year since the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and not much has changed in Medicare telehealth policy. We are still operating under temporary waivers and flexibilities and, as a result, many pandemic-era virtual care policies are facing a cliff on December 31, 2024. This looms large during a contentious election year in which legislating has grown increasingly difficult.
This +Insight explores the virtual care policy landscape one year after the end of the PHE, and describes the actions Congress and federal agencies must take for such pandemic-era policies to continue.
Subscribe
