The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case (US v. Skrmetti) concerning Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for youth. If the Court upholds the ban, some employers might consider offering travel benefits to help employees access healthcare services that are prohibited by state law. This could also apply to other plan-covered services that are not available within a certain geographic distance.
With the US election less than one week away, what are the legal implications of a Harris-Walz administration versus a Trump-Vance administration on reproductive rights? In this Q&A, Sarah Raaii explores how the election’s outcome could impact how plan sponsors and employers address reproductive care, including fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization.
With the US election one week away, what are the legal implications of a Harris-Walz administration versus a Trump-Vance administration regarding gender-affirming care? In this Q&A, Greg Fosheim, Sarah Raaii, and Alden Bianchi discuss how the election’s outcome could affect clients in the employee benefits and healthcare spaces.
Subscribe
