M/S benefits Archives - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG

M/S benefits

Anticipating the MHPAEA Final Regulations: A Word About Network Composition

by Alden Bianchi | Aug 6, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

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

Lessons from Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Group for the 2023 MHPAEA Proposed Rule

by Alden Bianchi | Apr 18, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

A recently decided US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case, Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., offers some useful insights on the enforcement by private litigants of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Like other similar cases, the case invites questions about the impact of potential changes under the proposed regulations issued under MHPAEA last year. Despite that the issues at this stage are procedural, the case nevertheless offers some useful insights, which this post explores.

Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.

According to the complaint, the group health plan under which Ryan S. was covered was administered by UnitedHealthcare. The plan covered outpatient, out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits at 70% of covered charges and at 100% once the out-of-pocket maximum was met.

Ryan S. completed two different outpatient, out-of-network substance use disorder programs, coverage for which was denied on multiple occasion and for disparate reasons. As the complaint explains, the denials resulted from UnitedHealthcare’s use of an algorithm that assessed patients’ progress and referred cases for additional review. This additional layer of review was not applied to outpatient, out-of-network medical/surgical (M/S) claims. Ryan S. alleges that UnitedHealthcare applied a more stringent review process to benefits claims for outpatient, out-of-network MH/SUD treatment than to otherwise comparable M/S treatment. The complaint states this disparity in applicable review standards violates:

MHPAEA
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary rules
The failure to follow the terms of the plan as required by ERISA

The Disposition of the Plaintiffs’ Claims

The district court had dismissed all the claims. The Ninth Circuit reversed on MHPAEA and ERISA fiduciary claims but let stand the district court’s dismissal of the claim related to plan terms.

MHPAEA requires that any limitations on “mental health or substance use disorder benefits” in an ERISA plan be “no more restrictive than the predominant treatment limitations applied to substantially all [covered] medical and surgical benefits.” Thus, said the court, to succeed, a plaintiff must show an ERISA plan that offers both M/S and MH/SUD benefits imposed a more restrictive limitation on MH/SUD treatment than limitations on treatment for M/S issues. The court then identified three situations in which such a violation might occur:

Facial exclusion cases: A plaintiff can allege that a plan contains an exclusion that is discriminatory on its face.
“As-applied” cases: A plaintiff can allege that a plan contains a facially neutral term that is discriminatorily applied to MH/SUD treatment.
Internal process cases: A plaintiff can allege that a plan administrator applies an improper internal process that results in the exclusion of an MH/SUD treatment.

In the court’s view, the complaint raises internal process claims. As such, violations cannot be discerned with reference to the plan document. The court therefore saw no reason to disturb the district court’s dismissal of the claim relating to plan terms.

With respect to the MHPAEA and ERISA fiduciary claims, [...]

Continue Reading

The MHPAEA Proposed Rule: ‘Meaningful Benefits’ and the ‘Scope of Services’

by Alden Bianchi | Feb 20, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

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.

A plan that generally covers treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a mental health condition, and covers outpatient, out-of-network developmental evaluations for ASD but excludes all other benefits for outpatient treatment for ASD, including applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy, when provided on an out-of-network basis. (ABA therapy is one of the primary treatments for ASD in children.) The plan generally covers the full range of outpatient treatments and treatment settings for M/S conditions and procedures when provided on an out-of-network basis. The plan in this example violates the applicable parity standards.
In another example, a plan generally covers diagnosis and treatment for eating disorders, a mental health condition, but specifically excludes coverage for nutrition counseling to treat eating disorders, including in the outpatient, in-network classification. Nutrition counseling is one of the primary treatments for eating disorders. The plan generally provides benefits for the primary treatments for medical conditions and surgical procedures in the outpatient, in-network classification. The exclusion of coverage for nutrition counseling for eating disorders results in the plan failing to provide meaningful benefits for the treatment of eating disorders in the outpatient, in-network classification, as determined in comparison to the benefits provided for M/S conditions in the classification. Therefore, the plan violates the proposed rules.

Notably, the newly proposed meaningful benefits requirement is separate from, [...]

Continue Reading

The MHPAEA Proposed Rule: Standards of Care and Medical Necessity

by Alden Bianchi | Feb 1, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

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

The Proposed MHPAEA Regulations: Comments on Behavioral Health Carve-Out Vendors

by Alden Bianchi | Dec 5, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

This post continues our focus on comment letters submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The proposed regulations were issued earlier this year by the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury (the Departments). Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.

The MHPAEA generally requires parity between mental health/substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits and medical/surgical (M/S) benefits with respect to annual and lifetime dollar limits, financial requirements and treatment limitations. Treatment limitations may be quantitative (quantitative treatment limitations or QTLs) or nonquantitative (nonquantitative treatment limitations or NQTLs). As the names suggest, QTLs involve limits to which numbers may be applied, e.g., cost-sharing amounts or length of a hospital stay, while NQTLs involved limitations that are not so restricted. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 added a requirement that plans and issuers perform and document comparative analyses of the design and application of NQTLs on MH/SUD and M/S benefits. The proposed regulations focus on the regulation of NQTLs and compliance with the comparative analyses 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:

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 applications requirements; and
The plan or issuer must collect, evaluate and consider the impact of relevant data on access to MH/SUD benefits as opposed to M/S benefits and take reasonable action to address any material differences.

These requirements, if adopted as proposed, could make it difficult for group health plans to use third-party payers that manage their MH/SUD benefits under so-called “MH/SUD carve-out” vendor arrangements. Also referred to generically as “managed behavioral health organizations,” MH/SUD carve-out vendors are payers that claim specialized expertise with, and focus exclusively on the treatment of, mental health and substance use disorders. Plans contract with these providers for reasons of cost, quality and ease of administration. Even under current law, demonstrating compliance for a single NQTL involves a number of steps, each of which must be repeated for each additional NQTL. NQTLs designed and adopted by mainstream M/S providers and administrative services vendors and carve-out vendors will differ in their particulars. Layering on new, quantitative “no more restrictive” and “data collection” requirements will add a new level of complexity that may be prohibitively costly for plans that seek to use MH/SUD carve-out vendors.

Even if plans using MH/SUD carve-out vendors could manage to obtain and process all the required data, there is another concern: These entities typically design and adopt their own NQTLs that are presumably informed by their expertise adjudicating MH/SUD claims. These NQTLs will at least in some if not many instances bear little resemblance to the NQTLs adopted by a plan’s M/S benefit vendors, networks and payers. The proposed regulations include exceptions under which an NQTL applied to MH/SUD benefits [...]

Continue Reading

The Proposed MHPAEA Regulations: A Comment on the Comments

by Alden Bianchi | Nov 14, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

In our last post, we considered some of the comment letters submitted in response to proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) issued by the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury (the Departments). Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.

The comment period for the proposed regulations closed on October 17, 2023. Stakeholders submitted more than 7,500 comments. While we have not read them all, we’ve seen enough to discern the broad contours. There are those in favor, those opposed and those that take some middle ground with recommended modifications. Among the latter, the modifications run the gamut from trivial to substantive. One particular comment generally approving of the rule but urging modifications caught our attention. It was submitted by the Brookings Institution, and it offered the following (at least in our view) useful insights.

Heterogeneity of Mental Health/Substance Use Disorder (MH/SUD) Benefits Versus Medical/Surgical (M/S) Benefits

The comment explains that roughly 41% of M/S visits are for chronic conditions, which are less likely to be subject to concurrent review. In contrast, between 64% and 69% of MH/SUD visits focus on treatment of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, psychoses and personality disorders, i.e., chronic recurring conditions. The comment notes: “Even if all chronic visits in general medical practice were subject to concurrent review, any concurrent review for mental health or substance use disorder services would fail the ‘substantially all’ test.” (Emphasis added)

The comment recommends that the Departments consider a more fine-grained method of comparing the use of nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) between MH/SUD benefits and those for M/S benefits.

Schematic Representation of NQTLs (and Why This Matters)

The comment expresses concern over the depth of the analysis that is required for each NQTL. Page four provides a useful schematic that fleshes out the particulars. The schematic makes the point that a substantial amount of effort is involved in demonstrating compliance for a single NQTL. The steps include “identifying which services apply [ ], identifying factors considered in the design of the NQTL, identifying sources used to define these factors, and demonstrating that the NQTL is applied no more stringently to mental health and substance use disorder benefits than medical/surgical benefits.”

Moreover, all steps must be repeated for each additional NQTL. While even a casual review of the proposal would lead the reader with the sense that compliance would be a challenge, the use of the visual schematic drives the point home visually.

The Exception for Independent Professional Medical or Clinical Standards

The proposed rule identifies two exceptions to the NQTL requirements, the first of which is based on “Independent Professional Medical or Clinical Standards.” While there is a good deal of disagreement as to its proper scope and even its utility, the Brookings comment worries that “the language in the proposed rule also opens the door to regulatory gaming because it is overly broad.” According to the comment: “If the [...]

Continue Reading

The ‘Meaningful Benefit’ Requirement for NQTLs Under the Proposed MHPAEA Regulations

by Alden Bianchi | Sep 13, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

In previous posts, we reported on proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) issued by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments). More recently, we turned our attention to the treatment of non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs), i.e., non-numeric benefit coverage limits that must be no more restrictive for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits than for medical surgical (M/S) benefits. This blog post focuses on the proposed regulations’ “meaningful benefit” requirement.

Current law contains the now familiar rule that says if a plan (or health insurance issuer) provides MH/SUD benefits in any classification, those benefits must be provided in every classification in which M/S benefits are provided. (“Classifications” for this purpose include inpatient, out-of-network; inpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; emergency care and prescription drugs.) But current law says nothing about which MH/SUD benefits must be provided in any classification. A plan or issuer might, for example, be able to comply by offering a single limited benefit for MH/SUD disorders or conditions in one or more classifications.

The proposed regulations add a requirement that plans and issuers must provide “meaningful benefits” for the treatment of MH/SUD disorders or conditions. While the term “meaningful benefit” is not defined, the proposed regulations offer two examples:

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

A plan that covers treatment for ASD, including outpatient, out-of-network developmental evaluations, but excludes all other benefits for outpatient treatment for ASD, including applied behavior analysis (ABA). (ABA therapy is one of the primary treatments for children with ASD.) The plan covers the full range of outpatient treatments and treatment settings for medical conditions and surgical procedures when provided on an out-of-network basis. The failure to cover ABA therapy violates the “meaningful benefits” requirement in the outpatient, out-of-network classification.

Eating Disorders

A plan covers diagnosis and treatment for eating disorders but specifically excludes coverage for nutrition counseling to treat eating disorders, including in the outpatient, in-network classification. (Nutrition counseling is one of the primary treatments for eating disorders.) The plan generally provides benefits for the primary treatments for medical conditions and surgical procedures in the outpatient, in-network classification. The exclusion of coverage for nutrition counseling results in the failure of the “meaningful benefits” requirement for the treatment of eating disorders in the outpatient, in-network classification.

The Departments invite comments on how to define “meaningful benefits” and on whether there might be other potential alternatives. Would it be more practical, for example, to require plans and issuers to provide “substantial coverage” of MH/SUD benefits or benefits for the “primary or most common or frequent types of treatment for a covered condition or disorder” in each classification in which M/S are provided? Violations of the “meaningful benefits” requirement would, under the proposal, constitute an MHPAEA parity violation, which would allow the Department of Labor to order the plan or issuer not to impose the NQTL unless (and until) the plan or issuer demonstrates compliance.

The ‘No More Restrictive’ Requirement for NQTLs Under the Proposed MHPAEA Regulations

by Alden Bianchi | Aug 29, 2023 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

We previously reported on proposed regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). If adopted in final form, these regulations would vastly complicate compliance by group health plans and health insurance issuers with an already challenging set of mental health parity rules.

The proposed regulations deal principally with non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs), i.e., non-numeric benefit coverage limits that must be no more restrictive for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits than for medical surgical (M/S) benefits. Examples of NQTLs include prior authorization requirements, concurrent review, standards for provider admission, Rx formulary design, and fail-first policies or step therapy protocols.

The proposed regulations set out new requirements on NQTLs that include a three-part test consisting of a “no more restrictive” requirement, a “design and application” requirement and a “data evaluation requirement.” There is also a new meaningful benefit requirement, under which plans and issuers must provide meaningful benefits for MH/SUD treatment where the plan also provides a corresponding M/S benefit. With perhaps the exception of the “design and application” requirement, each of these requirements represents a major new compliance obligation on the part of plans and issuers.

This blog post focuses on the “no more restrictive” requirement. Future posts will examine the other requirements.

MHPAEA regulates aggregate lifetime and annual dollar limits, financial requirements, and treatment limitations. (The Affordable Care Act bars lifetime and annual dollar limits on essential health benefits (EHBs). Under MHPAEA, plans and issuers may not be able to impose lifetime and annual dollar limits on MH/SUD benefits that are not EHBs.) Treatment limitations are subdivided into quantitative treatment limitations (QTLs) (e.g., number of days or visits covered) and NQTLs.

The 2013 final MHPAEA regulations apply numerical standards testing to financial requirements and QTLs. These final regulations also adopted six classifications of benefits for this purpose: inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. To comply, a financial requirement or QTL imposed on an MH/SUD benefit must be no more restrictive than the predominant financial requirement or QTL that applies to substantially all M/S benefits in a classification. For this purpose:

Substantially all” means that the financial limitation or QTL applies to at least two-thirds of all M/S benefits in the classification; and
“Predominant” means the level of financial requirement or QTL that applies to more than one-half of the M/S benefits in the relevant classification.

The 2013 final regulations largely rely on a subjective analysis of the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used in the application of NQTLs. The proposed regulations retain this subjective standard and layer on a quantitative “no more restrictive” requirement. As proposed, NQTLs would be subject to numerical standards testing similar to the current law testing that applies to financial requirements and NQTLs. While the “substantially all” prong would not change, some minor modifications would be made to the “predominant” prong. Under the proposed regulations, when testing NQTLs, the term “predominant” [...]

Continue Reading

BLOG EDITORS

Alden J. Bianchi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS