On September 9, 2024, the Biden administration issued much-anticipated final regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The rules implement a host of complicated new compliance requirements for sponsors and issuers of health plans, instituting new obligations to collect and evaluate plan data, conduct comparative analyses, and act to address material differences in access to mental health and substance abuse benefits as compared to medical and surgical benefits.
During a recent webinar, Alden Bianchi, Jake Mattinson, and Sarah Raaii provided a comprehensive overview of the new rules, including compliance deadlines and key takeaways for employers, plan sponsors, and issuers of group health plans. The speakers also addressed how the new rules might impact any ongoing US Department of Labor investigations.
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.
Application of the Quantitative Testing Requirements to NQTLs
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.
Mental Health Carve-Out Vendors
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:
Must be no more restrictive when applied to MH/SUD benefits as compared to M/S benefits;
The plan or issuer must meet specified design and application requirements; and
The plan or issuer must collect, evaluate and consider the impact of relevant data on [...]
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.
The New York State fiscal year 2024 – 2025 budget institutes a new tax on health plans, including insurers and managed care organizations. This tax has been garnering attention for its promise to yield $4 billion for New York State. The expected revenue from the tax, however, is set to come not from the health plans operating within the state but from the federal government. California implemented a similar scheme last year.
Democratic lawmakers recently sent a letter to the US Office of Personnel Management urging the Biden administration to enhance the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program’s in vitro fertilization coverage. The letter comes as some states have signaled an interest in enforcing personhood rights in treatments involving embryos, according to this Federal Times article.
“When you can’t receive the services within a state, obviously it doesn’t do you much good if your [insurance] plan still technically covers them,” said Sarah Raaii.
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.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Assembly Bill 352 and Assembly Bill 254 into law, effective January 1, 2024. Through these new laws, California seeks to mitigate the risk of out-of-state prosecution of individuals seeking abortions or gender-affirming care. These bills include significant changes to California privacy and health information interoperability laws that will impact healthcare providers, health plans, employers, electronic health record developers and certain digital health companies handling medical information related to gender-affirming care, abortion, and abortion-related services, sexual health, fertility or contraception.
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.
What is the primary force that will act on healthcare in 2023? What topics, trends and opportunities are hot this year? And how does the public feel about healthcare provider organizations today?
Section 204 of Title II of Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 amended the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to add rules governing prescription drug data collection (RxDC). The rules require group health plans, including plans offered to Federal Employees Health Benefits carriers, and health insurance issuers to report certain information related to prescription drug and other healthcare expenditures to the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments). Under the statute, the first RxDC reports were due to be filed by December 27, 2021. However, in response to concerns expressed by stakeholders, enforcement was pushed back a full year to December 27, 2022.
In an FAQ issued December 23, 2022 (FAQ About Affordable Care Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Implementation Part 56), the Departments provided relief to group health plans and health insurance issuers who are required to report information relating to prescription drug and healthcare spending.
Subscribe
