Header graphic for print

Employee Benefits Counsel

Legal Insights into the Developments that Impact the Employee Benefits Community

HHS Issues New Set of FAQs on Determining Essential Health Benefits

By Ilyse Schuman

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) has issued additional guidance (pdf) on the approach the agency plans to take in defining the essential health benefits (EHB) that non-grandfathered insured health plans in the individual and small group markets must cover under the Affordable Care Act. In December 2011, the agency issued an essential health benefits bulletin that described its proposed regulatory approach in determining which benefits will be deemed essential. Generally, as of January 1, 2014, non-grandfathered plans in the individual and small group market and those in the future insurance exchanges will be required to provide coverage of benefits or services that fall into 10 separate categories, including emergency services, prescription drugs, and maternity and newborn care.

The December bulletin explained that HHS will propose that EHB be defined by a benchmark plan selected by each state, which could be modified as needed so long as the value of coverage is not reduced. The bulletin proposed four separate plan types that could be used as a benchmark: the largest plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products in the state’s small group market; any of the largest three state employee health benefit plans by enrollment; any of the largest three national federal employee health benefit plan (FEHBP) options by enrollment; or the largest insured commercial non-Medicaid Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) operating in the state. If the state opts not to use one of these four plan types as its benchmark, HHS intends to propose that the default benchmark plan per state “be the largest small group market product in the state’s small group market.” HHS defines a “product” as a package of benefits an issuer offers that is reported to state regulators in an insurance filing.

Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking, Health and Welfare Plans, Healthcare Reform

HHS Releases Model Notices Related to Medical Loss Ratio Requirement

By Ilyse Schuman

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued proposed notices that health insurance companies may use for compliance with the new Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements under the Affordable Care Act. The new health care law mandates that health insurers, depending on the size of the insurance market, spend between 80 and 85% of premium revenue on reimbursement for clinical services or activities that improve health care quality, or provide a rebate to their enrollees. The rebates must be paid by August 1 of each year, beginning in 2012. The law also imposes certain reporting requirements for insurers. Interim final regulations on the MLR requirement were issued in November 2010. Final regulations on the MLR requirement, including its application to mini-med plans and distribution of rebates to enrollees in group health plans, were issued in December 2011.

Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking, Health and Welfare Plans, Healthcare Reform, Reporting & Filing

Agencies Issue Final Rule on Contraceptive Coverage

By Ilyse Schuman

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service have issued a final rule that adopts without change interim final regulations that exempt group health plans and group health insurance coverage sponsored by certain religious employers from having to cover certain preventive health services under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The interim final rule issued in August 2011 expands the types of women’s health preventive services – including birth control – that must be covered without any cost-sharing by non-grandfathered health plans as required under the Affordable Care Act. The rule exempts from this requirement those employers whose “primary purpose” is to instill religious values. For the purposes of this exemption, a religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization.

On January 20, 2012, the HHS announced that it would give other non-exempt religious-affiliated employers – such as religious schools and hospitals – that provide health coverage to their employees an extra year to comply with the requirement that their plans include coverage for birth control. Specifically, the HHS announcement stated that non-exempt religious employers will have until August 1, 2013 to ensure that their plans include contraceptive coverage and do not charge co-pays, co-insurance or deductibles for FDA-approved birth control methods.

Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking, Benefits & Wellness, Healthcare Reform

Second Circuit Holds that Dukes Prohibits Certification of ERISA Claim Under Rule 23(b)(2)

By Darren E. Nadel

In Nationwide Life Insurance Co. v. Haddock, No. 10-4237 (2d Cir. February 6, 2012) [pdf], the Second Circuit reversed a district court order granting class certification.  The plaintiffs in Haddock assert that Nationwide breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA by allegedly collecting “revenue sharing payments” from mutual funds that Nationwide selected as investment choices for its annuity holders.  The district court previously granted class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), which permits certification of class actions where “injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” 

Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) [pdf], it was common for similar “hidden fees” cases to be certified as class actions.  The Second Circuit even went out of its way to state that the district court’s order granting class certification was correct under the Second Circuit’s analysis that predated Dukes.  However, the Second Circuit recognized that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Dukes, “a class complaint alleging numerous individual claims for monetary relief may not be certified under Rule 23(b(2) ‘at least where … the monetary relief is not incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief.’” Slip op. at 4 (quoting Dukes at 2557.)   

Analyzing the suit before it, the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief were not merely incidental to the claim for equitable relief.  Specifically, the Second Circuit observed that should the plaintiffs be successful in establishing liability, the district court would need to determine the specific monetary recoveries to which each individual plaintiff would be entitled. The Second Circuit then recognized that “[t]his process would require the type of non-incidental, individualized proceedings for monetary awards” that the Supreme Court said are impermissible under Rule 23(b)(2).  The Second Circuit has remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits certification of claims for monetary relief where common issues predominate over individualized issues.

Lessons Learned . . .

When faced with an ERISA class action, Dukes may be helpful in defeating class certification where members of the purported class are each seeking separate monetary recoveries, which are more than merely incidental to the injunctive relief pursued by the class.  While pre-Dukes precedent often afforded certification of “hidden fees” cases, the post-Dukes litigation landscape is different and should be accounted for in planning for the strategy of defending and/or pleading a Rule 23 class action premised on claims under ERISA.

 

Posted in Employee Benefits Litigation

DOL Issues New Guidance Related to Affordable Care Act Provisions

By Ilyse Schuman

The Department of Labor has issued a new technical release document that provides responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Affordable Care Act’s automatic enrollment, employer shared responsibility, and the 90-day limitation on waiting periods provisions. In addition to providing guidance on these topics, the document discusses possible approaches under consideration for future regulations and guidance materials.

Automatic Enrollment

The Affordable Care Act amends Section 18A of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require most very large employers (those with more than 200 full-time employees) to automatically enroll new full-time employees in the employer-provided health plan, and to renew coverage for those already enrolled. Earlier guidance explained that until the DOL developed regulations on this new section, employers are not required to comply with the automatic enrollment mandate.

Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking, Healthcare Reform

Agencies Issue Final Rule Regarding Summary of Benefits and Coverage

By Ilyse Schuman

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury have issued final regulations (pdf) under the Affordable Care Act to implement the requirement that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide consumers with a summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) that “accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage” to enable enrollees and participants to better compare plan terms and benefits. The rule also includes details about the notice of modifications that must be sent to enrollees and policyholders informing them of any significant changes in coverage that will occur in the middle of the plan year at least 60 days before such changes take effect. Finally, the rule provides requirements for the uniform glossary – which includes common medical terms such as “deductible” and “co-pay” – that must also be provided to consumers at various points in the enrollment process. In conjunction with the final rule, the agencies have issued a template for the SBC instructions, sample language, a guide for coverage example calculations, the uniform glossary, and other related guidance materials. (pdf)

Generally, the SBCs will be required to summarize, in plain language, key features of the plan or coverage, including covered benefits, cost-sharing provisions, and coverage limitations and exceptions. The SBC must be provided when potential enrollees are shopping for coverage, when they actually apply for coverage, at each plan year, and upon request. In most instances, participants and beneficiaries who are already covered under the group health plan may receive an SBC electronically if certain regulatory requirements are met. Those who are eligible for but not enrolled in coverage may receive the SBC electronically so long as the format is readily accessible and a paper copy is provided free of charge upon request.

Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking, Health and Welfare Plans, Healthcare Reform, Reporting & Filing

IRS Publishes Interim Report on Section 401(k) Compliance Check Questionnaire

By Melissa B. Kurtzman

On February 3, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), published its Interim Report on Section 401(k) Compliance Check Questionnaire (“Interim Report”).  The Interim Report is significant because, according to the IRS, 401(k) plans have become the most prevalent form of retirement plans in the United States – with more than 500,000 401(k) plans covering approximately 60 million Americans.  Continue Reading

Posted in Benefits Counseling

IRS Proposes to Bless Longevity Insurance

By Susan Katz Hoffman

On February 3, 2012, the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued proposed regulations that would exempt the purchase of a “Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract” (“QLAC”) from the account balance that would have to be distributed under the minimum distribution rules of Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(9).  This writer first heard about longevity insurance at a Joint Committee on Employee Benefits governmental conference where one speaker described this new product as a way to protect plan participants whose primary retirement vehicle is a defined contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan.  The concept is that if a retiree takes a portion of his/her account balance at retirement (between age 55 and 65) and invests it in an annuity that doesn’t commence until age 80 or 85, the cost of the annuity would be low enough to be affordable for most retirees.  And if the retiree then lives to that age (as so many retirees now do), the annuity would kick in to provide income by the time the original account has been depleted.  Of all of the ideas promoted at that session, longevity insurance appeared to be the most attractive and least disruptive to plan administration. Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking

The Department of Labor Publishes Final Regulations Regarding 408(b)(2) Fee Disclosures

By Joni L. Andrioff and Lisa A. Taggart

On February 3, 2012, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) published final regulations setting out the fee disclosure rules for persons or entities providing services to retirement plans governed by ERISA.  See Treas. Reg. §2550.408-2; 77 Fed. Reg. 023 (Feb. 3, 2012) pgs. 5632-5659. These regulations detail the disclosures that a covered service provider must furnish to a covered plan fiduciary before that fiduciary may enter into or extend contracts for services to the plan under a new prohibited transaction class exemption.  The exemption was previously issued by the DOL in tandem with the regulation when issued in proposed form.  Under this exemption, if the requirements of the fee disclosure regulation are not satisfied, the expenses associated with the contract or service arrangement will not be treated as exempt from ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules and may be subject to excise taxes. Continue Reading

Posted in Agency Rulemaking

House Votes to Repeal Affordable Care Act’s Long-Term Care Program

By Ilyse Schuman

The House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to rescind another portion of the Affordable Care Act. The chamber approved by a 267-159 margin the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011 (H.R. 1173), a measure that would repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, (pdf) the Affordable Care Act’s long-term care program. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) already had announced that it was abandoning the program. The CLASS Act would have created a national, voluntary program for individuals to purchase long-term care benefits in the event they become functionally disabled. Adults would have been able to make premium contributions to this program directly or through payroll deductions. Under the terms of the CLASS Act, individuals who made such payments for at least five years and had been employed for at least three of those years would be entitled to cash benefits to purchase needed health and support services – and even certain non-medical needs – based on their degree of disability. The amount of benefits would have varied according to need, but would have averaged no less than $50 per day. The program was slated to begin providing such benefits in 2017. Continue Reading

Posted in Healthcare Reform