There have been significant developments that will impact the future of US Department of Labor regulations and litigation related to employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). Ted Becker and Julian André recently presented a webinar for the National Center for Employee Ownership and shared what ESOP fiduciaries, ESOP company directors, and employees involved with ESOPs need to know about these changes.
On August 12, 2024, the Biden administration launched a new “Time Is Money” initiative, seeking to crack down on time-consuming and burdensome business processes.
The initiative includes a requirement for federal employee health plans to provide an online opportunity to submit claims. It also features an accompanying letter to health insurance CEOs from the heads of the US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Labor that challenges the CEOS to offer online claim submissions, deny claims only where appropriate, and provide clear steps to appeal decisions.
Read more about the initiative and other McDermott+ healthcare-related regulatory updates here.
If our trade and industry sources have it right, we could see final regulations implementing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), as most recently amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), any day now. Last week, we offered a wish list of things we would like to see modified or addressed once the rules become final. Our previous MHPAEA commentary is available here.
An August 1, 2024, letter from Viginia Foxx, chairwoman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, to the secretaries of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the acting secretary of the US Department of Labor (DOL) leads us to add one more item to our wish list. It relates to a subject that has been a major item of contention and the cause of considerable frustration in MHPAEA audits: network composition and adequacy.
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 (MH/SUD) benefits and medical and surgical (M/S) benefits. Nothing in the CAA modifies prior law relating to network composition or adequacy, however. MHPAEA generally requires that the application of NQTLs on MH/SUD benefits “in operation” be comparable and no more stringent than on M/S benefits. In the case of an audit, the DOL has analyzed diverse types of outcomes data, such as denial or reimbursement rates.
But – and this is critical – nothing in existing law requires comparability of outcomes. Indeed, the DOL’s self-compliance tool makes clear that disparate outcomes are not determinative of noncompliance, recognizing that the law requires only that the processes and standards used in applying the NQTL be comparable across MH/SUD and M/S benefits. Different outcomes can still be MHPAEA-compliant. An intervening FAQ (No. 7) suggests otherwise, saying that disparate outcomes raise a “red flag.” FAQs lack the force of law, however.
The proposed rules upend current law by making differences in outcomes a strong indicator of noncompliance or, in the case of network composition, a conclusive determination of noncompliance. Chairwoman Foxx criticizes this approach, saying that “This [ ] suggests that approval or denial rates in either a MH/SUD or M/S context are indicative of appropriateness.” This is in her view a flawed assumption. She also claims that the DOL, HHS and Treasury (the Departments) have exceeded their statutory authority in the matter. The DOL is in our experience applying this rule on audit as though the proposed rule is the law.
We express no opinion on whether the proposed rule comports with the statue. This is for the courts to decide. It’s no secret, however, that the Departments now face a higher bar in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (wherein the Court overruled the [...]
Continue Reading
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:
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 this webinar recorded for the National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO), Ted Becker and Julian André discuss the changing landscape of employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) litigation. The program covers trends in recent significant court decisions relating to ESOPs as well as the latest theories advanced by plaintiff’s counsel and the US Department of Labor.
During this election year, McDermottPlus is actively monitoring annual regulations that federal agencies are expected to release, as well as “ad hoc” regulations that will be released at the discretion of federal agencies.
This chart displays health-related regulations that may be issued this year, organized by federal agency and date of potential release.
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:
This post continues our consideration of comments submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.
Under current law, if a plan provides any mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits in any classification of benefits, benefits for that condition or use disorder must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical (M/S) benefits are provided. Classifications for this purpose include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. The proposed regulations modify this standard by providing that a plan does not provide benefits for MH/SUD benefits in every classification in which M/S benefits are provided unless the plan provides meaningful benefits for treatment for the condition or disorder in each such classification “as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for medical/surgical conditions in the classification.”
The term “meaningful benefits” is nowhere defined. The regulators nevertheless “recognize that the proposal to require meaningful benefits [ ] is related to scope of services.” “Scope of services” for this purpose generally refers to the types of treatments and treatment settings that are covered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer. The preamble to the proposed regulation invites comments on how the meaningful benefits requirement “would interact with the approach related to scope of services adopted under the 2013 final regulations.” The preamble of the 2013 final regulations addressed an issue characterized as ‘‘scope of services’’ or ‘‘continuum of care’’ but otherwise failed to provide any substance. Two examples from the proposed regulations do, however, give us a sense of what the regulators have in mind.
Notably, the newly proposed meaningful benefits requirement is separate from, [...]
Continue Reading
Comments submitted in response to the proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) reflect a broad range of perspectives. Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.
A nontrivial subset of the comments single out a particular nonqualified treatment limitation (NQTL) for special treatment or scrutiny. An example of this trend is found in an October 16, 2023, comment letter submitted by the Legal Action Center. The letter asks the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) to address the rule’s treatment of medical standards of care and medical necessity.
Under the 2013 final MHPAEA regulations, a plan or issuer may not impose an NQTL with respect to mental health/substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits in any classification unless the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards or other factors used in applying the NQTL in the classification are comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than, the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards or other factors used in applying the limitation with respect to medical/surgical (M/S) benefits. (Classifications for this purpose include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs.)
The proposed regulation defines “strategies” as “practices, methods, or internal metrics that a plan or issuer considers, reviews, or uses to design an NQTL.” Compliance with and deviations from generally accepted standards of care are cited as examples. Strategies for this purpose include “the development of the clinical rationale used in approving or denying benefits,” which is the central purpose of medical necessity determinations.
Medical necessity criteria are considered NQTLs because the criteria have the capacity to limit a patient’s access to or duration of MH/SUD treatment that are not based on the frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage or days in a waiting period (the latter are quantitative treatment limitations). The Legal Action Center claims that plans sometimes develop their own criteria for determining medical necessity for MH/SUD treatment or use criteria developed by nonprofit clinical specialty associations or industry entities, despite the law’s admonition that plans must treat the two comparably. Concerned that under the proposed regulation plans retain significant discretion to adopt overly restrictive medical necessity criteria, the Legal Action Center asks the Departments to revise the definition of “strategies” to include a definition of “generally accepted standards of care” that is tied to criteria and guidelines from the nonprofit clinical association for the relevant specialty.
One way to determine the quality of a medical necessity definition is to look at claims data, which offer a useful test of parity compliance. Current law does not require parity of outcomes, but the proposed regulation does. The proposed rule would require that plans collect and evaluate outcomes data for the express purpose of assessing the impact of the NQTL on access to MH/SUD benefits. Material differences in outcomes are viewed as a strong indicator of noncompliance. (For the network composition NQTL, a material difference in outcomes data [...]
Continue Reading
Subscribe
