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 legislative fix to surprise medical billing is not working the way lawmakers imagined it would work. According to this Politico Pro article, private equity groups are disproportionately benefiting from the No Surprises Act, and the law may inadvertently lead to higher health insurance premiums.
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.
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.
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 [...]
How can companies provide abortion travel benefits to their workers without disclosing sensitive medical information? In this Corporate Counsel article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii provides insight into how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) offer protections for workers seeking reproductive healthcare services.
“The most common way that we’ve seen employers offering these abortion benefits is to include them in their existing ERISA health plans, in which case they [the plans] would be subject to HIPAA,” Raaii said.
What should company general counsels (GCs) know about abortion trigger bans, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and how not to break the law in light of the new abortion landscape in the United States? In this MedCity News article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii offers insight into how companies can protect abortion access for workers.
“One thing that GCs and employers should do is closely track any new state developments in a state you have business interests in,” Raaii said. “And if you have employees all over, unfortunately that could mean keeping track of 50 different states laws because it’s as simple as ‘this state does or doesn’t prohibit abortion,’ there’s different levels of protection.”
As US states seek to reduce abortion access in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, how can employers protect workers who seek abortion care? In this Fortune article, McDermott’s David Gacioch, Sarah Raaii and Ellen Bronchetti offer insight into what the US Supreme Court’s decision means for employee healthcare data, employee benefits and Title VII.
“Any employer who doesn’t already have an assessment of what the end of Roe means for its operations and workforce…needs to get in front of this,” Gacioch said.
Effective January 1, 2022, the No Surprises Act protects healthcare consumers from surprise medical billing under certain circumstances.
Two health insurance advocacy organizations recently surveyed more than 80 commercial health insurance companies and received responses from 31 companies, which collectively represent 115 million commercial health plan members. These companies reported receiving 600,000 claims covered by the No Surprises Act (NSA) in January and February 2022. However, based on claims experiences from prior years and factoring in processing delays this year, the two organizations estimate the true number of NSA-eligible claims in the first two months of 2022 was actually more than 2 million. The two organizations project that the No Surprises Act could prevent more than 12 million surprise bills in 2022 alone.
Could a worker be fired for having an abortion? According to this Insider article, workplace laws would likely protect pregnant people from discrimination. McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said employers should make sure abortion health plan coverage does not conflict with federal laws.
“Incorporating abortion benefits into an employer’s existing health plan might help mitigate worker privacy concerns,” Raaii said, “since health plans are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).”
Subscribe
