Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Archives

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

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.

Preparing for the End of the COVID-19 Emergency: Deadline Tolling

by Jacob Mattinson, Sarah Raaii, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | May 18, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The Biden administration previously announced its intent to end the COVID-19 National Emergency (NE) and the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023 (read our series introduction for more information). On April 10, 2023, President Biden signed a resolution moving up the end of the NE to April 10, 2023 (the PHE ended on May 11). The US Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued a set of FAQs (available here) on March 29, 2023 (FAQs), which anticipated that the NE would end on May 11, 2023 (see our prior article explaining the FAQs). Plan sponsors should continue to treat May 11 as the end of the NE consistent with the FAQs until the Departments say otherwise.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Departments provided relief from certain benefit plan deadlines, including:

The minimum 60-day election period for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) continuation coverage.
The date for making COBRA premium payments (45 days for the initial, then minimum 30-day grace periods).
The date for individuals to notify the plan of certain qualifying events (divorce, dependent child aging out of plan coverage) or determination of disability as it relates to COBRA coverage.
The date for providing a COBRA election notice (typically within 14 days after the plan receives notice of a qualifying event).
The 30-day period (or 60-day period, if applicable) to request Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) special enrollment.
The date within which individuals may file a benefit claim or an appeal of an adverse benefit determination under a plan’s claims procedures.
The date within which claimants may file a request for an external review after receipt of an adverse benefit determination or final internal adverse benefit determination.

This article discusses how the affected tolled deadlines will be phased out and what actions employers may need to take.

BACKGROUND

EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2020-01, later extended by EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2021-01, provided that the deadline by which action needs to be taken for the events described above was tolled until the earlier of: (i) one year from the date the deadline would have first started running for that individual or (ii) sixty (60) days from the end of the NE (the Outbreak Period). This guidance created a tolling deadline specific to each affected individual. Where the individual has not reached the one-year anniversary of the date of the initial deadline, timeframes will begin to run again sixty (60) days after the end of the NE (i.e., July 10, 2023).

The FAQs released by the Departments at the end of March provided much-needed clarification and various helpful examples for employers of how the outbreak period should be taken into consideration when calculating the tolled deadlines. For example, if an employee experiences a qualifying event under COBRA and loses coverage on April 1, 2023, the deadline for the individual to make a COBRA election is tolled until the earlier [...]

Continue Reading

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.

Preparing for the End of the COVID-19 Emergency: High-Deductible Health Plans and Health Savings Accounts

by Jacob Mattinson, Sarah Raaii, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | May 3, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

The Biden administration originally announced its intent to end the COVID-19 National Emergency (NE) and the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023 (read our prior article for more information). Although the end date of the NE was subsequently advanced to April 10, 2023, by Congressional resolution, the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) have given no indication that the change will affect employee benefits plans. Plan sponsors should continue to treat May 11 as the end of the NE until the Departments say otherwise.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, certain permissive practices were allowed by high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and health savings accounts (HSAs). This article explores whether these benefit offerings can be continued at the end of the PHE and NE.

HDHPs AND HSAs

IRS Notice 2020-15 temporarily permits the coverage of COVID-19 testing with no cost-sharing for HDHPs. It provides that an HDHP will not fail to be an HDHP merely because the plan covers expenses related to COVID-19 testing and treatment prior to satisfying the applicable minimum deductible. This guidance was not directly tied to the NE or the PHE, meaning that it will eventually lapse. The eighth question/answer of the FAQs indicates that individuals covered by an HDHP who have purchased items related to COVID-19 testing or treatment prior to meeting the applicable minimum deductible can continue to contribute to an HSA until further guidance is issued. The Departments also assured plan sponsors that future changes will generally not require HDHPs to make mid-year changes for covered individuals to remain eligible to contribute to an HSA.

Thus, individuals covered by an HDHP may continue to contribute to an HSA following the end of the PHE. COVID-19 vaccinations also continue to be considered preventive care under Section 223 of the Code for purposes of determining whether a health plan is an HDHP.

ACTION ITEMS

Once the PHE and NE have ended, employers can continue their practice of allowing individuals covered by an HDHP plan to contribute to an HSA. Employers need to also consider whether they will continue to cover COVID-19 tests as required by a doctor or OTC without cost-sharing. Employers should strategize what effect this might have on the HDHP. This might also require an amendment to the health plan or its summary plan description. Employers should continue to watch for further guidance from the Departments on this issue.

Mental Health Parity, Quantitative Treatment Limitations, Employee Assistance Plans and the End of the COVID-19 Emergency

by Jacob Mattinson, Sarah Raaii, Alden Bianchi and Teal Trujillo | Mar 29, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

The Biden administration has announced its intention to end the COVID-19 National Emergency (NE) and the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023 (read our series introduction for more information). Among other things:

The NE and the PHE modified the rules governing financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The end of the NE and the PHE will require modifications to group health plans’ and health insurance issuers’ MHPAEA testing as it relates to financial requirements and quantitative treatment limits. The NE and the PHE also affect the design and operation of some employee assistance plans (EAPs).
The NE and the PHE allowed plan sponsors to expand coverage under excepted benefit EAPs in certain respects without risking their status as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-excepted benefits.

MHPAEA

MHPAEA requires that the financial requirements (such as coinsurance and copays) and quantitative treatment limits (such as visit limits) imposed on mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits cannot be more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a particular benefit classification. During the public health emergency period, group health plans and health insurance issuers were permitted to disregard certain items and services related to testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, when performing the “substantially all” and “predominant” tests. Absent this relief, the costs of covering COVID-19 testing items and services without cost-sharing would be the amounts allocated to medical/surgical benefits, thereby putting group health plans and health insurance issuers at risk of running afoul of MHPAEA quantitative treatment limits.

From and after the end of the PHE, group health plans and health insurance issuers must include the cost of covering COVID-19 tests, either diagnostic or over-the-counter, or testing-related services, when calculating MHPAEA quantitative treatment limits.

Action Items: Employers should revisit their MHPAEA compliance testing to ensure that the coverage of COVID-19 tests is properly accounted for in applying the relevant quantitative treatment limits. There is, however, no longer a requirement that a group health plan or health insurance issuer cover these services without charge.

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLANS

The end of the NE and the PHE could have various impacts on EAPs depending on the specific plan design. Employers may, for example, see a spike in the need for mental health support that could be met through EAP services. While the pandemic may be winding down, the mental health impacts of the past three years may continue for by many employees. Employers may need to continue to offer mental health services and resources through their EAPs, and potentially explore expanding mental health services through an EAP or otherwise, to support employees who are struggling with anxiety, depression or other mental health issues related to the pandemic.

Particular attention is required in the case of excepted benefit EAPs. Excepted benefit EAPs do not provide minimum essential coverage for Affordable Care [...]

Continue Reading

HHS Supreme Court Loss Previews Low-Income Drug Discount Fight

by Emily J. Cook | Jul 12, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

A recent US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) US Supreme Court loss involving drug reimbursements to hospitals may impact a larger battle over drug discounts for low-income Americans. According to this Blomberg Law article, the Court ruled in June that HHS improperly cut $1 billion a year in drug reimbursements to hospitals through a government program that assists at-need populations. Now, both HHS and hospitals may be on the same side of a different skirmish—whether the agency can require pharmaceutical companies to offer discounts to specific pharmacies. McDermott Partner Emily Jane Cook said language in the Court’s opinion “suggests that the court does have a very favorable view of the 340B program and the hospitals that participate in that program.”