Affordable Care Act Archives - Page 2 of 23

The ACA 1557 Final Regulations: Plans and Plan Sponsors as Covered Entities

by Alden Bianchi | May 21, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

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 [...]

Continue Reading

Webinar Replay: New Employee Benefits Requirements for Part-Time Employees, Independent Contractors

by Brian Tiemann and Joseph K. Mulherin | Apr 9, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans

If you employ part-time workers and/or engage independent contractors, sit up and take note: 2024 brings significant changes to how you must manage your workforce. The US Department of Labor’s (DOL) revised Independent Contractor Rule introduces additional uncertainty as to how the agency and perhaps courts will decide independent contractor misclassification disputes. Provisions of the SECURE 2.0 Act, meanwhile, will simultaneously impose a new mandate for employers to provide part-time workers with expanded access to retirement benefits.

In this webinar, McDermott Partners Brian J. Tiemann and Joseph K. Mulherin, along with Tom Robertson of Graystone Consulting, discussed the steps employers must take to ensure compliance with these new regulations taking effect in 2024.

Topics included:

How the SECURE 2.0 Act, starting this year, expands the criteria under which employers must offer part-time employees the opportunity to participate in employer-sponsored 401(k) and 403(b) retirement plans
The DOL’s changes to its Independent Contractor Rule, compliance considerations, tips for strengthening the independent contractor argument and mitigating misclassification risks
Other benefits considerations employers must be aware of if required to reclassify workers, such as the mandate to provide employee health insurance under the Affordable Care Act

Access the webinar.

Obamacare Would Be Even Harder to Kill Now, but Trump Promises to Try Anyway

by Rodney Whitlock | Jan 22, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

While former President Donald Trump has threatened to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if he wins reelection, the landmark healthcare law would be increasingly difficult to dismantle. In this CNN article, McDermott+Consulting’s Rodney Whitlock says the country is “as close as we’ve been to meeting the aspirational goals of 2010 for the ACA.”

Access the article.

Funding Employer-Sponsored Group Health Coverage: The Group Captive Solution

by Alden Bianchi, Lisa Kaderabek and Teal Trujillo | Dec 13, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 led to a sharp increase in employers self-funding their group health insurance plans, with the market tripling in size in the decade that followed. While larger employers can self-fund their group medical coverage in a relatively efficient manner, it does not work well for smaller employers. As year-over-year spending on healthcare in the United States outpaces growth in real gross domestic product by wide margins, employers of all sizes continue to seek to make group health insurance coverage available to their employees at a reasonable cost. Group captive-funded medical stop-loss insurance offers a way for smaller employers to obtain the full benefit of self-funding. This Special Report explains what group medical stop-loss captives are and how they are structured and regulated.

Access the report.

Agencies Issue FAQs on Surprise Billing and Cost-Sharing Rules Coordination

by Alden Bianchi | Jul 25, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

A recent article by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and National Public Radio (NPR) raised the prospect that patients may still see surprise medical bills despite the enactment of the No Surprises Act (NSA).

The article, entitled A Surprise-Billing Law Loophole? Her Pregnancy Led to a Six-Figure Hospital Bill, reports the story of a woman who was admitted for an extended inpatient hospital stay and follow-up postpartum procedure after experiencing a serious pregnancy complication. According to the article, the plan initially determined that the hospital was a nonparticipating provider, but the specialty clinic at which she was treated was in the carrier’s network. (The clinic’s doctors admitted patients only to the nonparticipating provider hospital.) The result was some $135,000 in uncovered expenses.

There are two relevant statutory provisions at play here:

The NSA provides protections against surprise medical bills for, among other things, nonemergency services furnished by nonparticipating providers with respect to a visit to a participating healthcare facility.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes limits on annual cost sharing, which includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or similar charges. Cost sharing does not, however, include balance billing amounts for non-network providers.

A great deal is riding on whether facilities and providers are participating or nonparticipating for NSA purposes, and whether providers are in or out of network for ACA purposes. If it is possible for a nonparticipating facility to have a participating provider, then there would seem to be a gap in the NSA’s protections. In the government’s view, this is not possible, so there is no gap.

The US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) weighed in on the issue in Q&As 1 and 2 of recently issued FAQs Part 60. According to the Departments, either:

The balance billing and cost-sharing protections under the NSA will apply because the items and services are furnished by a nonparticipating provider, emergency facility or provider of air ambulance services; or
The ACA limits will apply because the items or services are furnished by an in-network provider or provider of air ambulance services.

Under no circumstance, however, can a facility be a “participating” provider for NSA purposes and at the same time claim that they are not subject to the ACA out-or-pocket limits on in-network cost sharing.

The KFF/NPR article does not report the details about the underlying contractual arrangements. This might have been a health maintenance organization or other network-related plan, for example. The article does report that the balance bill was reversed, although no rationale is provided. The lesson here, according to the Departments, is that a plan or carrier cannot be in network for one purpose and out of network for other purposes to evade the surprise billing rules.

Fixing the ACA’s Family Glitch

by Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | Jul 13, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The “family glitch” was a regulatory oddity of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It required the affordability of an employer-sponsored health plan to be determined based solely on the cost of the plan to an individual employee, disregarding the costs to add family members to a plan. This resulted in many families being ineligible for marketplace premium subsidies when purchasing their own health insurance on exchanges. In October 2022, the US Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a final rule designed to fix the “family glitch.”

In this Bloomberg Law article, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo examine the rationale advanced by the IRS in support of its changed position in the matter of the “family glitch” and consider how the new position of the IRS might fare if challenged in the wake of West Virginia v. EPA.

Read the article.

Tri-Agencies Address Preventive Services Coverage in the Wake of Braidwood

by Sarah Raaii, Jacob Mattinson, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | May 5, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) have released a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in response to Braidwood Mgmt. Inc. v. Becerra, a recent case that invalidated a portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) preventive services mandate. The FAQs aim to address inquiries from stakeholders, while also emphasizing the Departments’ opposition to the Braidwood ruling. The Departments urge plans and issuers to continue providing coverage for preventive services at no additional cost to patients.

Coverage of COVID-19 Vaccines and the End of the COVID-19 Emergency

by Jacob Mattinson, Sarah Raaii, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | Mar 15, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

Since the Biden administration announced its intention to end the COVID-19 National Emergency (NE) and the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023, a topic of great debate has been the requirement and the coverage of COVID-19 vaccines.

As of March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act has required health plans and issuers to cover COVID-19 vaccines without cost sharing, even when provided by out-of-network providers, during the PHE. Health plans and issuers have been required to cover COVID-19 vaccines within 15 days after any vaccine becomes recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or receives a rating of “A” or “B” classification recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Separately, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) generally requires coverage of vaccines recommended by the ACIP and the USPSTF as preventative care without cost sharing. If a COVID-19 vaccine is provided by an out-of-network provider, however, health plans may begin to impose cost sharing and certain prior authorization and medical management requirements. As a result, after the PHE, COVID-19 vaccines will still need to be covered without cost sharing except in the case of an out-of-network provider.

Due to the ongoing requirements of the ACA, there will be minimal actions that employers need to take after the PHE ends regarding vaccine coverage. The primary changes are that ACIP-recommended COVID-19 vaccines should be covered immediately instead of after a 15-day hold period and that health plans can decide whether to apply cost sharing, prior authorization and medical management requirements to COVID-19 vaccines obtained from an out-of-network provider. A summary of material modifications and/or plan amendment may be required for any changes the health plan makes. Even for plans that are not subject to the ACA, such as grandfathered health plans, participants cannot be balance billed if a vaccine dose was purchased by the federal government. However, the federal government has not received additional funds from Congress to continue to purchase more vaccines for some time. Employers and plan sponsors should stay up to date on developments, as there may be some questions regarding which vaccines must be covered without cost sharing as more vaccines become available.

For any questions regarding the end of the PHE and/or NE, please contact your regular McDermott lawyer or one of the authors.

HHS Announces Record Number of ACA Marketplace Enrollments

by Debra Curtis, Kristen O'Brien and Erica Stocker | Feb 23, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

On January 25, 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that more than 16.3 million people nationwide selected an ACA Marketplace health plan during the 2023 open enrollment period that ran from November 1, 2022, until January 15, 2023, for most marketplaces.

According to HHS, total plan selections include 3.6 million people who are new to the marketplaces for 2023 (22% of the total). The 3.6 million figure is a 21% increase in new-to-marketplace plan selections over last year.

The data included in HHS’s January 25 announcement represents activity through January 15 for the 33 marketplaces using HealthCare.gov, and through January 14 or 15 for the 18 state-based marketplaces in 17 states and the District of Columbia that use their own eligibility and enrollment platforms. Some state-based marketplaces are still in open enrollment and will report updated enrollment data after that period closes. A fact sheet on state-based marketplace open enrollment deadlines can be found here.

Proposed Universal Contraceptive Coverage in Response to Roe Reversal

by Alden Bianchi and Sarah Raaii | Feb 14, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The US Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (the Departments) recently issued a proposed rule to eliminate a moral exemption to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive mandate and establish an “individual contraceptive arrangement” to permit individuals to obtain contraceptive services at no cost in instances in which their employer does not offer coverage based on its religious beliefs. This is the latest development in the Biden administration’s efforts to increase reproductive health access after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Departments previously issued a reminder to health plans and insurers that the ACA requires contraceptive coverage at no additional cost to individuals.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS