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).”
Following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, health lawyers have been busy making sense of the legal implications of the court’s landmark ruling. In this Law360 article, McDermott Partners Stacey Callaghan and David Gacioch offer insight into the myriad of questions they’ve received from hospitals, pharmacies, telemedicine platforms, investors and other players in the industry.
“The field against whom [abortion restrictions] can be enforced becomes so much broader,” Gacioch said. “It’s such a sea change.”
A group of conservative Texas lawmakers is warning employers of potential civil or criminal consequences if they offer out-of-state abortion access to their employees. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott Partner Scott Weinstein said many companies offering reproductive healthcare benefits are making sure such benefits aren’t tied to a particular procedure.
Employers seeking to provide their employees with abortion services are facing a dizzying patchwork of laws that differ from state to state, according to this Corporate Counsel article. McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said companies with employees in multiple states “would really need to do a state-by-state analysis of what the abortion laws are, whether and under what circumstances abortion is legal in most states.”
A recent US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) US Supreme Court loss involving drug reimbursements to hospitals may impact a larger battle over drug discounts for low-income Americans. According to this Blomberg Law article, the Court ruled in June that HHS improperly cut $1 billion a year in drug reimbursements to hospitals through a government program that assists at-need populations. Now, both HHS and hospitals may be on the same side of a different skirmish—whether the agency can require pharmaceutical companies to offer discounts to specific pharmacies. McDermott Partner Emily Jane Cook said language in the Court’s opinion “suggests that the court does have a very favorable view of the 340B program and the hospitals that participate in that program.”
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will generate a minefield of legal and criminal implications for healthcare providers, according to this Healthcare Dive article. McDermott Partners Stacey Callaghan and David Gacioch offer insight into what these restrictive state laws could mean for providers.
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has left employers—and employees—with more questions than answers. While many employers have promised to pay for their employees to travel across state lines for an abortion, it’s unclear if employers might be sued for doing so. In this USA TODAY article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said employers may point to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion on the “constitutional right to interstate travel” for support.
The patchwork of US federal and state rules governing abortion insurance coverage will become more complicated following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In this MarketWatch article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said the situation has employers on edge.
“We’ve had a huge influx of employers reaching out and asking, ‘What should I be doing? Are there risks?’” Raaii said.
The 340B program landscape is constantly shifting. Wednesday’s US Supreme Court American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision is of critical importance to hospitals that participate in the 340B program. The Court held that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) improperly imposed a payment cut of almost 30% on 340B drugs paid by Medicare. Yet, while this decision is significant, it is not the end of the litigation surrounding the payment cut. The case has been remanded for further deliberation, which will include a determination of the remedies.
McDermott+Consulting has launched the 340B Litigation Tracking Tool, an up-to-date resource following the 30+ state and federal 340B program legal challenges. No more searching online or sorting through your newsfeed for updates on important case developments. This tracker, available 24/7 and routinely monitored by our team, delivers concise updates to help you make informed risk analyses on what’s next for your business in the evolving 340B landscape.
If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (as suggested by a leaked draft on May 2), employers who want to provide abortion coverage to employees and their families could encounter serious challenges. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott’s Sarah G. Raaii noted that employers that provide travel expenses for abortions might encounter resistance from state laws like a Texas statue that permits citizens to sue abortion providers for abortions performed around six weeks.
“If a state wants to interpret this very broadly—and it seems that some of them have indicated that they do—to really just punish anyone involved even peripherally with providing abortion in the states, employers could potentially be at risk.” Raaii said.
Subscribe
