Health Insurance |

Review & Update Health Plan Mental Health Coverage As DOL Supplements Guidance On Health Plan Mental Health Parity Rules

May 23, 2012

Group health plans and health insurers subject to the mental health parity requirements of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) have extra guidance about the effect of these requirements on utilization management and copayment requirements. As the Labor Department and other federal agencies celebrate Mental Health Awareness Month, plan sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries should review and update their plans to comply with the current requirements and tighten administration and other documentation to position decisions for defensibility against growing scrutiny.

In conjunction with its marking of Mental Health Awareness month in May, the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) recently updated its guidance and resources about the MHPAEA. The updated resources include:

New Mental Health Parity webpage, available here; and
Understanding (and Common Misunderstandings Related to) Implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, available here.

This new guidance supplements a growing list of guidance concerning the interpretation and enforcement of the MHPAEA by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury (the Departments). On November 17, 2011, the Departments jointly published more FAQs that share insights on how the MHPAEA requirements impact certain common copayments and utilization review arrangements historically used by plans and insurers. The new FAQ guidance here provides more clarification about the meaning of the interim final rules implementing MHPAEA the Departments jointly issued on February 2, 2010, and earlier FAQ guidance published on June 30, 2010 and December 22, 2010 as applied to these practices.

For group health insurers and group health plans subject to its provisions, MHPAEA generally requires that insurer or plan:

Cannot impose financial requirements and treatment limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical and surgical benefits; and
Cannot impose separate financial requirements or treatment limitations that are applicable only to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.

Insurers, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators also should consider the potential implications of various other federal requirements on the design and administration of mental health and substance abuse coverage and benefits under their programs. For example, the express reference to mental health and substance abuse benefits as included within the definition of “essential benefits” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act requires additional consideration of the effect of the Affordable Care Act’s annual and lifetime limit and other mandates relating to essential benefit coverage be evaluated and addressed. In addition, specific attention should be devoted to the potential effects of the Affordable Care Act’s independent review and other rules concerning the processing and payment of health benefit claims by non-grandfathered health plans.

Along with considering the potential implications of these emerging requirements, health insurers, group health plans and those involved in their design and administration also should verify that their eligibility and other program terms or practices do not inappropriately violate the nondiscrimination rules of laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act or other laws and that their plan and those involved in its administration are properly safeguarding the confidentiality of sensitive information about mental health , substance abuse or other health information about covered persons or their family. Learn more here.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Comments Off on Review & Update Health Plan Mental Health Coverage As DOL Supplements Guidance On Health Plan Mental Health Parity Rules | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, group health plan, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination

April 18, 2012

Killeen Fast-Food Restaurant Refused to Hire Hearing-Impaired Applicant Despite His Qualifications, Federal Agency Charges

Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabililties Act by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. An example of a growing number of disability discrimination enforcement actions taken against employers and others on behalf of hearing impaired or other persons with disabilities under the Obama Administration, the case against Texas Wendy’s highlights the growing enforcement exposures of U.S. businesses to disability discrimination claims under the Obama Administration.

Wendy’s Suit

The EEOC charges in its suit against Texas Wendy’s, Case No. 6:12-CV-00091-WSS in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system utilized by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

Expanding Disability Discrimination Exposures

As illustrated by the suit against Texas Wendy’s, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

The ADA generally prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.

In recent years, amendments to the original provisions of the ADA have made it easier for plaintiffs and the EEOC to establish disabled status of an individual. Businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, As signed into law on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA amended the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that that has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have sigificantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability. Violations of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to minimize exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and appropriate the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to enhance their ability to demonstrate nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the ADAAA, GINA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 214.270.2402.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 214.270.2402 or via e-mail here.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published in this electronic Solutions Law publication available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net.

Comments Off on EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plan BCBST To Pay $1.5 Million In 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Breach Report

March 13, 2012

Resolution Agreement Also 1^st Announced With Health Plan

Health plans and other covered entities beware and prepare! Health plans and other covered entities that report large breaches of unsecured protected health information to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights and face potential civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for violating the Privacy & Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

The HIPAA investigation and exposures to CMPs likely to result following the report of a large breach of unsecured protected health information is demonstrated by a new Resolution Agreement announced March 13, 2012 by OCR.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) has agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $1,500,000 and to take certain other actions specified in a corrective action plan to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules. The BCBST Resolution Agreement is particularly significant, both as:

The first reported enforcement action directly resulting from the filing by a covered entity of a breach report required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act Breach Notification Rule; and
The first reported resolution agreement reached with a covered entity that is a health plan.

These notable enforcement firsts prove both the importance the HITECH Breach Notification Rule’s significance as an OCR HIPAA enforcement tool, and the readiness of OCR to sanction health plans that breach HIPAA’s Privacy or Security Rules.

The OCR investigation that lead to the BCBST settlement began in response to the submission by BCBST of a notice required under the Breach Notification Rule of the theft of 57 unencrypted computer hard drives from a leased facility in Tennessee, which contained the protected health information (PHI) of over 1 million individuals. Read more details here.

The Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more to HHS and the media as well as an annual consolidated report of smaller breeches to HHS.[1]

To resolve being officially sanctioned for HIPAA violations stemming from these findings under the strengthened enforcement rules and sanctions enacted as part of the HITECH Act, BCBST has agreed to pay $1,500,000 and adopt other corrective actions detailed in a corrective action plan.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The BCBST Resolution Agreements, like the 1^st-ever $4.3 million HIPAA CMP that OCR imposed against Cignet Health of Prince George’s County, Md. (Cignet) in 2011 and a series of high dollar Resolution Agreements OCR has announced against various health care providers over the past few years highlight the significance of the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s enforcement and CMP rules, as well as use of its Breach Notification Rule as a tool in OCR’s investigation and enforcement efforts.

“This settlement sends an important message that OCR expects health plans and health care providers to have in place a carefully designed, delivered, and monitored HIPAA compliance program,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “The HITECH Breach Notification Rule is an important enforcement tool and OCR will continue to vigorously protect patients’ right to private and secure health information.”

BCBST’s breach notification report clearly prompted the investigation that lead to the Resolution Agreement. The opening of the investigation in response to the BCBST Breach Notification report reflects the need for covered entities to be prepared to respond to an investigation when these reports are made. OCR officials previously have stated that it is the practice of OCR to conduct an investigation into all breaches of the protected health information of 500 individuals or more reported to it under the Breach Notification Rule.

The BCBST Resolution Agreement provides yet another reminder to covered entities and their business associates of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures. For more tips, see here.

[1] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Health Plan BCBST To Pay $1.5 Million In 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Breach Report | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 36B, Affordable Care Act, exchanges, group health plan, health care exchanges, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, premium subsidies, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Portion of Health Care Costs Paid By Government Programs Rose As Employer Provided & Other Private Health Care Coverage Declined In 2010

January 9, 2012

Declining enrollment in private insurance resulted in continuing growth in government financing of health care expenditures in 2010 according to the Annual Report of National Health Expenditures (Report). The Report notes that since 2007, the economic recession and legislative changes led to a noticeable change in the shares of health care spending financed by businesses, households, and governments.

The federal government financed 29 percent of the nation’s health care spending in 2010, an increase of six percentage points from its share in 2007 of 23 percent, and reached $742.7 billion. Part of that increase came from enhanced Federal matching funds for State Medicaid programs under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act which expired in 2011.

U.S. health care spending grew 3.9 percent in 2010 to $2.6 trillion or $8,402 per person according to the Report. Review the details of the Report here.

National Health Expenditures 2010 Highlights

U.S. health care spending grew 3.9 percent in 2010. Coupled with record slow growth of 3.8 percent in 2009; the 2009-2010 represents the two slowest rates of growth in the fifty-one year history of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. The Report reflects the following breakdown of these expenditures;

Hospital Care: Hospital spending increased 4.9 percent to $814.0 billion in 2010 compared to 6.4-percent growth in 2009. Average annual growth in hospital spending between 2007 and 2010 was 5.5 percent. CMS reports this increase was slower than the trend between 2003 and 2006, when spending increased an average of 7.4 percent per year. Growth in private health insurance spending for hospital services, which in 2010 accounted for 35 percent of all hospital care, slowed considerably in 2010. The Report states that these trends occurred at the same time median inpatient hospital admissions declined and emergency department and outpatient hospital visits grew more slowly than in 2009.
Physician and Clinical Services: Spending on physician and clinical services increased 2.5 percent in 2010 to $515.5 billion, a deceleration from 3.3-percent growth in 2009. The 2010 deceleration reflects a decline in utilization, driven by a drop in total physician visits between 2009 and 2010 and a less severe flu season than in 2009.
Other Professional Services: Spending for other professional services, which includes providers of services such as physical therapy, chiropractic medicine, and mental health, decelerated slightly in 2010, increasing 3.6 percent to $68.4 billion after growth of 3.8 percent in 2009.
Dental Services: Spending for dental services increased 2.3 percent in 2010 to $104.8 billion compared to growth of only 0.1 percent in 2009. Out-of-pocket spending for dental services (which accounts for over 40 percent of dental spending) increased 0.5 percent in 2010 following a decline of 5.2 percent in 2009.
Other Health, Residential, and Personal Care Services: Spending for other health, residential, and personal care services grew 5.3 percent in 2010 to $128.5 billion, a deceleration from growth of 7.7 percent in 2009. This category includes expenditures for medical services delivered in non-traditional settings (such as schools or community centers), ambulance providers, and residential mental health and substance abuse facilities.
Home Health Care: Spending growth for freestanding home health care services slowed in 2010, increasing 6.2 percent to $70.2 billion following growth of 7.5 percent in 2009, as Medicare and Medicaid spending growth slowed in 2010.
Nursing Care Facilities and Continuing Care Retirement Communities: Spending for freestanding nursing care facilities and continuing care retirement communities increased 3.2 percent in 2010 to $143.1 billion, a deceleration from growth of 4.5 percent in 2009, driven by slower growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Prescription Drugs: Retail prescription drug spending grew only 1.2 percent to $259.1 billion in 2010, a substantial slowdown from 5.1-percent growth in 2009. The slowdown was driven by slower growth in the volume of drugs consumed, a continued increase in the use of generic medications, loss of patent protection for certain brand name drugs, fewer new drug introductions, and a substantial increase in Medicaid prescription drug rebates.
Durable Medical Equipment: Spending for durable medical equipment, which includes items such as eyeglasses, contacts and hearing aids, increased 7.3 percent to $37.7 billion in 2010 after increasing 0.8 percent in 2009.
Other Non-durable Medical Products: Spending for other non-durable medical products, such as over-the-counter medicines, reached $44.8 billion, an increase of 2.6 percent in 2010, the same rate of growth as in 2009.

Health Spending by Major Sources of Funds

The Report indicates that the portion of health care expenditures financed by private health insurance continued to decline as private health plan enrollment declined. As a result, the proportion of health care expenditures paid by government programs continued to rise. The federal government financed 29 percent of total health spending in 2010, a substantial increase from its share of 23 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, the shares of the total health care bill financed by state and local governments (16 percent), private businesses (21 percent), and households (28 percent) declined during the same time period. Specifically, the Report indicates the following:

Medicare: Medicare spending grew 5.0 percent in 2010 to $524.6 billion, a deceleration from growth of 7.0 percent in 2009. Spending for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare grew 5.0 percent in 2010 following growth of 4.5 percent in 2009. Medicare Advantage (MA) spending increased 4.7 percent in 2010, a steep deceleration from 15.6-percent growth in 2009 that resulted from an adjustment to payment rates in 2010.
Medicaid: Total Medicaid spending grew 7.2 percent in 2010 to $401.4 billion, a deceleration from 8.9-percent growth in 2009, driven primarily by slower growth in enrollment. Federal Medicaid expenditures increased 8.9 percent, while state Medicaid expenditures grew 3.9 percent. This difference in growth was due to approximately $41 billion in enhanced federal aid to states—a result of increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
Private Health Insurance: Growth in total spending for private health insurance premiums slowed in 2010 to 2.4 percent from 2.6 percent in 2009, continuing a deceleration that began in 2003. Growth in aggregate benefit payments also slowed, from 3.7 percent in 2009 to 1.6 percent in 2010. The slowdown reflects a decline in private health insurance enrollment, increases in cost sharing, and a shift by some consumers to plans with lower premiums. However, for the first time in seven years, growth in total premiums exceeded growth in total benefits; as a result, the private health insurance net cost ratio increased from 11.4 percent in 2009 to 12.1 percent in 2010.
Out-of-Pocket: Out-of-pocket spending grew 1.8 percent in 2010, an acceleration from growth of 0.2 percent in 2009. Faster growth in 2010 partially reflects higher cost-sharing requirements for some employers, consumers’ switching to plans with lower premiums and higher deductibles and/or copayments, and the continued loss of health insurance coverage.

The Report found household health care spending equaled $725.5 billion in 2010 and represented 28 percent of total health spending, slightly lower than its 29 percent share in 2007. Growth in total private health insurance premiums slowed in 2010 to 2.4 percent from 2.6 percent in 2009, continuing a slowdown that began in 2003. Despite this deceleration, for the first time in seven years, the growth in premiums exceeded the growth in insurer spending on health care benefits, with the net cost of insurance increasing by 8.4 percent or $11.3 billion in 2010. Out-of-pocket spending by consumers increased 1.8 percent in 2010, accelerating from 0.2-percent growth in 2009.

The state and local government share of total health spending declined from 18 percent in 2007 to 16 percent in 2010 and totaled $421.1 billion, in part due to the temporary assistance in the Recovery Act.

Project COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Coalition For Responsible Health Care Quality

Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment & the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Quality are coalitions of individuals and organizations that share the belief that every American and American organization has a stake, and something to contribute to our ability to find and implement the best options for ensuring that the U.S. health care system provides quality, affordable health care.

Health care impacts every individual and every organization in America. Consequently, every American citizen and organization including but not limited to health care providers, employers, insurer, and community organizations should take part. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up or speak up.

Project COPE urges and invites each individual and organization speak up to help communicate and act to make health care work for themselves, their families and others when you can and share your input to help preserve and continue to develop real meaningful improvements to our health care system by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Portion of Health Care Costs Paid By Government Programs Rose As Employer Provided & Other Private Health Care Coverage Declined In 2010 | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 36B, Affordable Care Act, exchanges, group health plan, health care exchanges, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, premium subsidies, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment Deadline 1/31 On HHS Plan To Let States Define ACA “Essential Benefits” That Concerns Many

December 29, 2011

January 31, 201 is the deadline for employers, insurers, and others with concerns about the proposal of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to delegate authority to individual states to decide the definition of essential benefits for purposes of the state exchange and other requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) on a state-by-state.

As part of its sweeping health care reforms, the Affordable Care Act requires that health insurance plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges), offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as “essential health benefits.” The definition of “essential health benefits” also has significant implications on employers. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers that fail to provide health coverage through an insured or self-insured group health plan that provides the required package of essential health benefits will be required to make payments to help subsidize the cost for their employees to purchase qualifying health care coverage through one of the health care exchanges established pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.

HHS announced its proposal for state determination of the meaning of essential benefits in an Essential Health Benefits Bulletinc (Bulletin) published December 16, 2011. The Bulletin only addresses the services and items covered as “essential benefits” by a health plan, not the cost sharing, such as deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance. HHS says it will address the cost-sharing features in future bulletins and cost-sharing rules will determine the actuarial value of the plan.

While HHS touts its proposal for allowing flexibility to the states, many employers, insurers, union and employer-sponsored health plans and others are concerned. Organizations and individuals concerned about the proposal or its implications should act quickly to prepare and submit comments reflecting their concerns by the January 31, 2012 comment deadline.

HHS Proposal Allows State-By-State Essential Benefit Definition

As proposed in the Bulletin, HHS would give states the flexibility to decide the items and services included in the essential health benefits package required within their states in accordance with the guidance outlined in the Bulletin.

Within the limits established by HHS, states would decide the package of benefits required to be offered as “essential benefits” within their state by selecting a benchmark plan for to set the essential benefit definition for their states. In choosing the benchmark plan that will decide the required essential benefits for their state, states would be required to choose from one of four allowable health insurance plan options set by HHS:

One of the three largest small group plans in the state;
One of the three largest state employee health plans;
One of the three largest federal employee health plan options; or
The largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market.

The benefits and services included in the health insurance plan selected by the state would be the essential health benefits package.

When picking a benchmark plan, HHS intends to continue to require that the states make sure their essential health benefits package at least covers items and services in at least ten categories of care specifically listed as in the Affordable Care Act as included in the definition of essential benefits. These categories are:

Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories:

Ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

Consequently, if a state selects a plan that does not cover all ten categories of care, HHS intends to require the state to examine other benchmark insurance plans, including the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, to determine the type of benefits that will be included in the essential health benefits package.

Proposal Prompts Many Questions & Concerns

HHS says that its proposed approach to allowing states to decide the definition of essential benefits “would give states the flexibility to select a plan that would be equal in scope to the services covered by a typical employer plan in their state” while allowing states and insurers to keep the flexibility to evolve the benefits package with the market as innovative plan designs emerge. However the proposal is drawing criticism from many.

When Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, supporters touted it as ensuring that all Americans would have access to a uniform set of core benefits that the Act refers to as “essential benefits” while promoting efficiency by providing a uniform set of mandate benefits to be provided by all group health plans, health insurers and health insurance exchanges.

The proposal has raised many questions among employers and unions that sponsor self-insured group heath plans for employees and those involved in their design and administration. Since 1974, the preemptive provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) generally have exempted single employer self-insured group health plans and their insurers from the administrative and cost burdens of complying with state insurance laws and regulations.

Among other things, critics complain that the proposal to forgo a uniform national definition will:

Drive up costs by requiring states to use as a benchmark plan programs that are much richer and most costly than the insured or self-insured benefit plans offered by most employers;
Undermine cost savings that would have resulted from the use of a uniform national definition of essential benefits;
Subject insurers, health plans, and employers and unions to conflicting regulatory obligations, create disparities;

Proposal Prompts Many Questions & Concerns

Organizations and individuals concerned about the proposal in the Bulletin will need to move quickly to share their concerns with HHS. Comments are due by January 31, 2012. Parties wishing to comment can send their comments to:EssentialHealthBenefits@cms.hhs.gov.

Comments Off on Comment Deadline 1/31 On HHS Plan To Let States Define ACA “Essential Benefits” That Concerns Many | Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employer, Essential Health Benefis, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Insurer, Mandated Benefits, medical insurance, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, tpa, Union | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Senator Tells IRS To Fix Proposed Health Care Exchange Premium Tax Credit Regulations

December 16, 2011

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, says the premium subsidy provisions of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care act (Affordable Care Act) does not authorize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to allow individuals purchasing coverage through a federal health insurance exchange to receive the tax credits and subsidies authorized under new Internal Revenue Code § 36B to offset the cost of being mandated to buy health insurance created under Affordable Care Act Section 1311.

As created under the Affordable Care Act, Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 36B grates a refundable tax credit for certain individuals purchasing qualifying health insurance coverage from a qualified health plan. According to Senator Hatch, IRS proposed regulations here to implement Code § 36B would violate its provisions by allowing individuals that buy coverage through federal exchanges to claim premium tax credits because the express language of the statute only calls for amounts paid for coverage from “State” exchanges to count when calculating the amount of the credit. Read more details here.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Senator Tells IRS To Fix Proposed Health Care Exchange Premium Tax Credit Regulations | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 36B, Affordable Care Act, exchanges, group health plan, health care exchanges, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, premium subsidies, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Guidance On Fiduciary Duties In Handling ACA Group Health Plan Premium Rebates Highlight Advisability Of Tightening Funding Terms & Fund Handling Practices To Manage Fiduciary Risks

December 13, 2011

Group health plan sponsors and fiduciaries need to exercise care to properly handle any premium rebates, if any, received by from insurers to comply with the medical loss ratio rules enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) to avoid violating the plan assets and other fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), according to Technical Release No. 2011-04, Technical Release on Fiduciary Requirements for Handling Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Rebates (“Technical Release”) published December 2, 2011.

As amended by the Affordable Care, Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) requires that health insurance issuers:

Publicly report on major categories of spending of policyholder premium dollars, such as clinical services provided to enrollees and activities that will improve health care quality;
Establishes medical loss ratio (MLR) standards for issuers; and
Requires issuers to provide rebates to enrollees when their spending for the benefit of policyholders on reimbursement for clinical services and health care quality improving activities, in relation to the premiums charged (as adjusted for taxes), is less than the MLR standards.

Employers or other sponsors that are group policyholders on insurance contracts covered by the MLR rules are likely to receive any rebates due because Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final regulations implementing these MLR requirements published December 7, 2011 require issuers to pay any MLR rebates “to the policyholder.”

In anticipation insurers’ payment of these rebates, the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) is cautioning employers and other ERISA-covered group health plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries that premium rebates received from an insurer pursuant to these HHS MLB regulations may be plan assets required to be handled in accordance with ERISA’s plan assets and other fiduciary responsibility rules.

In the December 2, 2011 Technical Release, EBSA reminds plan sponsors and fiduciaries that premium rebates distributed pursuant to the Affordable Care Act’s MLR standards with respect to a group health plan are likely to be plan assets protected by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. Accordingly, the Technical Release cautions that plan sponsors or other parties receiving or exercising discretion over the rebated amounts that are ERISA plan assets generally should see that rebated amounts are handled in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility and trust requirements generally applicable to ERISA plan assets.

Determination whether the premium rebate is a plan asset generally requires a careful evaluation of whether the plan has a beneficial interest in the rebate and certain other factors. According to the Technical Release, a distribution such as the rebate to a group health plan will be a plan asset if the plan has a beneficial interest in the distribution under ordinary notions of property rights. While the identity of the policyholder – the employer or other plan sponsor versus a trust or plan – is one important consideration, the Technical Release warns that this is not the only factor.

The Technical Release says the fact that the employer is the policyholder or the owner of the policy would not, by itself, indicate that the employer may retain the distributions. Rather, determining who is entitled to the distribution requires careful analysis of a broad range of factors including:

The terms of the governing plan documents;
The funding sources of the policy;
The parties’ understandings and representations; and
Other relevant facts and circumstances.

If the rebate is an ERISA plan asset, employers or others receiving a premium rebate payment and others with discretion over the use and handling of the rebate should take steps to ensure that they can demonstrate the rebate is handled and expended in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility requirements. Among other things, this means that rebated amounts should be:

Held in trust unless the plan fiduciaries verify that an exception applies;
Used only for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants in the plan and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan;
Handled in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA section 404 and the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA section 406;
Held in trust in accordance with ERISA section 403; and
Not allowed to inure to the benefit of any employer.

The Technical Release reminds plan sponsors and administrators that if the rebate is a plan asset, decisions about and actions taken to deposit in trust, allocate, apply, spend and other aspects of handling the plan’s portion of a rebate generally are subject to ERISA’s general standards of fiduciary conduct, prohibited transaction and trust requirements. The Technical Release also provides guidance about allocation of the rebate under certain circumstances and certain other questions that are likely to arise in connection with the receipt of a rebate. Insurers, brokers, consultants and others working with employers or other plan sponsors, administrators, or fiduciaries who may receive a rebate or otherwise involved in making funding decisions also may want to discuss the guidance and other fiduciary responsibility rules with their clients to help promote understanding and compliance.

Because violations of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules can create personal liability, employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and others participating in decisions or administration of a rebate exercise care in dealing with any rebate. Many plan sponsors also may want to consider reviewing and tightening as warranted existing plan, trust, insurance policy, plan communications and other documentation to lower risks and promote desired characterization of rebates and other amounts paid into or with respect to their plans.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices or with other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on leading health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New Guidance On Fiduciary Duties In Handling ACA Group Health Plan Premium Rebates Highlight Advisability Of Tightening Funding Terms & Fund Handling Practices To Manage Fiduciary Risks | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, Fiduciary Responsibility, group health plan, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Mental Health Parity Guidance On Mental Health & Substance Abuse Copays, Utilization Management Limits Released

December 7, 2011

The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury (the Departments) on November 17, 2011 published additional FAQs that share insights on how the MHPAEA requirements impact certain common copayments and utilization review arrangements historically used by plans and insurers. The new FAQ guidance here provides additional clarification about the meaning of the interim final rules implementing MHPAEA the Departments jointly issued on February 2, 2010, and previous FAQ guidance published on June 30, 2010 and December 22, 2010 as applied to these practices.

For group health insurers and group health plans subject to its provisions, MHPAEA generally requires that insurer or plan:

Cannot impose financial requirements and treatment limitations on mental health and substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical and surgical benefits; and
Cannot impose separate financial requirements or treatment limitations that are applicable only to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.

The new FAQs share the Departments joint response to questions about their interpretation of the interim final rules on nonquantitative treatment limitations in various respects. Among other things, the new FAQs reflect:

The new FAQs respond to various questions about the effect of the MHPAEA on various medical necessity and other utilization management practices that health plans and health insurers historically have applied mental health and substance abuse coverage’s.

The FAQs generally reaffirm that group health plans and health insurers generally cannot apply stricter medical necessity or other utilization review for mental health or substance abuse treatments than the prevailing requirements generally applicable to medical surgical benefits under the plan or policy.

The FAQ also provides insight into evidence that health insurers or health plan sponsors should consider and retain when designing fraud control or other medical management techniques to be defensible under the MHPAEA’s parity requirements.

Furthermore, the new FAQs also provide guidance about the viability and use of differences in clinical standards of care, length of stay, and other clinical standards to justify differences in the periods of coverage provided for mental and substance abuse coverage versus other types of treatments.

Finally, the FAQs also address when a group health plan or health insurer can require covered persons to pay a higher specialist copayment for mental health or substance abuse treatments than generally applies to care rendered to a non-specialist.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Mental Health Parity Guidance On Mental Health & Substance Abuse Copays, Utilization Management Limits Released | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, group health plan, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Group Health Plans & Insurer To Get More Time To Meet Affordable Care Act Summary of Benefits and Coverage Requirements

December 7, 2011

Delayed Deadline Allows Much Needed Time To Continue Preparations

Group health plans and insurers, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and other services providers are getting more time to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s new Summary of Benefits and Coverage (“SBC”) mandate beyond the March 23, 2012 deadline originally set forth in the Proposed Regulations jointly published by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury (the Departments). Plans, their insurers and administrators should make good use of this time to continue the time consuming planning and preparations expected to be required to comply with the final rules.

As amended by the Affordable Care Act, Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”) § 2715 PHS requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide a “Summary of Benefits and Coverage” and “Uniform Glossary” meeting standards developed by the Departments.

In August, 2011, the Departments jointly published proposed regulations and accompanying templates detailing the content, format, supplements and other requirements that they proposed requiring health plans and health insurers to meet to satisfy the SBC requirements.

If implemented in final form as proposed, group health plans and insurers, their sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries can expect that significant work will be required to evaluate and prepare the SBC and associated adjustments to plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other materials and practices that are likely to be required in response to the new requirements. Since health plan documents and insurance contracts are unlikely to already use the same definitions as the SBC regulations require be used in the Glossary, group health insurers and self-insured group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and other administrators generally will want to review and adjust definitions and other plan document and insurance cotnract provisions to eliminate inconsistencies and address other concerns. Likewise, adjustments to summary plan descriptions, certificates of benefits and other communication materials also likely will be needed. Furthermore, most health insurers and group health plan may want to reevaluate claims and other cost and reserve projections and consider other adjustments in response to potential implications of these adjustments.

As originally proposed by the Departments, health plans and issuers faced a March 23, 2012 deadline to begin complying with the SBC rules. Since August, 2011, we and various other attorneys from the American Bar Association RPTE and Tax leadership, as well as others have shared concerns with representatives of the Departments about the compliance deadlines and other aspects of the Proposed Rules. New guidance released by the Departments in November reflects that the Departments are taking this input to heart.

According to joint guidance issued by the Departments in November, the health plans and insurers will not be expected to comply by March 23. Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) guidance jointly issued by the Departments indicates that health plans and health insurers will not be required to comply with the SBC mandate until after the Departments issue finalize regulations.

According to the FAQ, the Departments’ final regulations, once issued, will include an applicability date that allows group health plans and health insurance issuers “sufficient time to comply.” The FAQ does not indicate when the Departments expect to publish final regulations or the length of the period following this publication that the Departments anticipate health plans and issuers will have to come into compliance.

This news provides welcome relief for group health plans and insurers, and the employers, administrators and others working to update and administer group health plans in response to the Affordable Care Act. Health plans, insurers, their sponsors, administrators and service providers are cautioned to make good use of this added time to begin preparing to respond quickly when regulations are finalized. While the Departments are expected to make various refinements when finalizing the regulations beyond adjusting the compliance deadline, plans and insurers are expected to be required to engage in significant planning and other preparations to meet the revised rules. In light of this, health insurers and group health plans, their sponsors, administrators and fiduciaries generally are advised to continue these preparations based upoln the guidance set forth in the proposed regulations so that they can be prepared to respond in a timely fashion to the final regulations.

For Help or More Information

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For important information concerning this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Group Health Plans & Insurer To Get More Time To Meet Affordable Care Act Summary of Benefits and Coverage Requirements | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health premiums, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Final Medicare Rule Imposes Many Conditions On Access To Medicare Claims Data To Evaluate Providers & Suppliers

December 6, 2011

Final Rules Make Direct Access To Data By All But Most Sophisticated Impossible

The Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) says disclosures of certain Medicare provider and supplier claims performance data scheduled to begin in January will empower employers, health plans and consumers to better evaluate the quality of these health care providers and suppliers.

CMS plans to begin sharing certain Medicare parts A, B and D provider claims data with “qualifying entities” that can demonstrate the necessary experience and qualifications for use in assisting employers, health plans and others to evaluate the performance of providers and suppliers. CMS also will generate public reports about this performance data for purposes of aiding employers, consumers and others in evaluating the quality for provider or suppliers.

The disclosures will be made in response to Section 10332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively the “Affordable Care Act”). Section 10332 generally requires CMS make available this Medicare data to “qualifying entities” for use in conjunction with other claims data to evaluate provider performance effective January 1, 2012.

The new Final Rule on Availability of Medicare Data for Performance Measurement (“Final Rule”) available for review here establishes detailed requirements about who, when and under what conditions that Medicare will allow qualifying entities to obtain and use certain standardized extracts of Medicare Parts A, B, and D provider and supplier performance data in conjunction with other claims data to evaluate provider and supplier performance pursuant to Section 10332. The Final Rule also discusses privacy requirements that qualifying entities must meet when handling this data. scheduled for official publication in the December 7, 2011 Federal Register

The disclosure of provider performance data is intended to provide greater transparency to employers, health plans, consumers and other parties in evaluating health care provider and supplier quality. To access this information, however, entities will have to comply with detailed requirements. Complicated restrictions included in the Final Rules make it likely that only sophisticated health plans and service providers will be able to directly access and use the provider and supplier data intended to be made available under the Final Rule, however.

As implemented under the Final Rule, entities wishing to access the provider or supplier claims data will be required to meet detailed qualification and other requirements. For instance, among other things, the Final Rule generally only allows an entity to access and use the provider data if it is an entity or business contractor to an entity that:

CMS determines is an entity eligible to obtain the provider data under the eligibility criteria set forth in the Final Rule;
Apply to obtain the provider data under the Final Rule for an allowed purpose in accordance with a demonstrated plan as required by the Final Rules;
Meet a detailed list of requirements demonstrating that it has the experience, governance, policies, procedures and other required qualifications specified in the Final Rules to qualify to obtain and use the provider data;
Pays the required fee;
Comply with annual reporting and other reporting and monitoring requirements;
Comply with the specific requirements of the Final Rules concerning the protection of the privacy of accessed data;
Agree to meet the requirements described in the Final Rules; and
Otherwise comply with all other applicable requirements of the Final Rule.

Entities accessing the information also will be monitored and subject to sanction for failing to comply with the Final Rule in using or handling the provider performance data once it is received. Once an entity is allowed to access the provider claims data, the Final Rules specify that CMS will monitor and assess the performance of qualified entities and their contractors through audits, review of data source documentation and data as requested by CMS; site visits; review of data reported by the qualified entity as part of required annual reporting and other reporting requirements set forth in the Final Rule; analysis of complaints from beneficiaries and/or providers or suppliers. If CMS determines that a qualified entity has breached any of these requirements, it may warn; require a corrective action plan (“CAP”); place the qualified entity on a special monitoring plan; or terminate the qualified entity from participation in the program in accordance with the Final Rules.

Health plans, employers, and other entities desiring to access or use this information will need to exercise care when applying to obtain and handling the data to ensure that all requirements are met. To ensure that these requirements are met, parties interested in obtaining these rules should seek assistance from competent counsel and other qualified advisors concerning their proposed application and use of this data.

In light of these and other conditions for accessing and using this information, only a very limited of very sophisticated health plans, employers or other entities or their advisors are likely to apply to or qualify to access and use the provider and supplier claims data as contemplated by the rule. Individual consumers, and most employers generally will only benefit from the new access allowed to this data indirectly, by accessing the analysis of these entities.

For Help or More Information

If you need help responding to this new guidance or otherwise to deal with other health plan or insurance, employee benefit, human resources, compensation, health care matters or related matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with health and managed care, insurance and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend insured and self-insured medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. She also has worked extensively with Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, association, employer and other group insurance arrangements, MEWAs, fraternal benefit and mutual aid programs, government programs, and a broad range of other specialized health and other programs and insurers to design and administer arrangements in response to their unique regulatory and operational needs. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on CMS Final Medicare Rule Imposes Many Conditions On Access To Medicare Claims Data To Evaluate Providers & Suppliers | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Releases Collection of New M-1 and Other Guidance Impacting Multiple Employer Welfare Plans

December 5, 2011

Multiple and multi-employer health and other welfare plans are subject to special Form M-1 and other reporting and disclosure and other requirements under Federal law as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”).

The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) updated its website with the following new guidance under the Affordable Care Act today:

Proposed Rule on Ex Parte Cease and Desist and Summary Seizure Orders: Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/proposedm1revisionsreg1.pdf
Proposed Rule on Filings Required of Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements and Certain Other Entities, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/proposedm1revisionsreg2.pdf
Notice of Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Report, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/proposedm1revisionsreg3.pdf
Notice of Proposed Revision of the Form M-1, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/proposedm1revisionsreg4.pdf
Proposed Form M-1 Revisions, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/proposedm1revisions.html
Fact Sheet, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsproposedm1revisions.html
Related News Release, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/2011/11-1677-NAT.html

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help reviewing or updating your health benefit program for compliance with ACA or other laws or with any other employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls matter, please contact the author of this article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A 2011 inductee to the American College of Employee Benefits Council, immediate past-Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPPT Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plan Committee Vice Chair, former ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, past Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Employee Benefit News Editorial Advisory Board Member, and a widely published speaker and author, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising businesses, plans, fiduciaries, insurers. plan administrators and other services providers, and governments on health care, retirement, employment, insurance, and tax program design, administration, defense and policy. Nationally and internationally known for her creative and highly pragmatic knowledge and work on health benefit and insurance programs, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive involvement in advising and representing these and other clients on ACA and other health care legislation, regulation, enforcement and administration.

Widely published on health benefit and other related matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights and articles have been published by the HealthLeaders, Modern Health Care, Managed Care Executive, the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Wall Street Journal, the American Bar Association, Aspen Publishers, World At Work, Spencer Publications, SHRM, the International Foundation, Solutions Law Press and many others.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on EBSA Releases Collection of New M-1 and Other Guidance Impacting Multiple Employer Welfare Plans | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, Claims Administration, COBRA, Disability, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, M-1, MEWA, multi-employer, multiple employer, multiple employer welfare plan, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Incentives To Get Employee Into Wellness Education Requires Legal Risk Management

December 3, 2011

Employers and health plans hoping to leverage the cost containment and other benefits of effective wellness programs may find helpful insights from a new Healthy Cal report about The Network for a Healthy California. When designing and administering these programs, however, employers and health plans need to use care to manage nondiscrimination and privacy risks.

Healthy Cal reports that the experience of the The Network for a Healthy California, a partnering program by federal, state, and local agencies, shows that educational programs can help low-income families make better health choices.

According to the Healthy Cal report, the 2009 Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance data from the California Department of Public Health found that roughly 21 percent of the population in Orange County’s between the ages of 5 and 20 years, and 17 percent of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years were obese.

Healthy Cal says the Network created a number of initiatives that have helped many of Santa Ana’s low-income population access healthy foods and conducted a broad range of other educational programs for the population. Noting that the outreach sought improve food choices, cultural and awareness barriers and other understandings and patient and family behaviors and circumstances. Healthy Cal reports that these efforts are paying off. Learn more at Healthy Cal.

Effective education programs are one element of successful wellness and disease management programs. The Network’s efforts show that success from these efforts requires persistence. Of course, making wellness education work starts with getting the employees and their families to the lesson. That often is where the challenge lies.

Employers and health plans often face challenges getting employees and their family to participate in these and other wellness programs. Many employers and health plans try to overcome participation barriers by offering financial or other rewards or penalities. However, legal concerns require that these arrangements be designed and used with great care to ensure that the savings sought from the wellness program are not overshadowed by defense and liability costs.

Financial or other incentive and reward programs of course must be designed to comply with the nondiscrimination rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and, perhaps most significantly of late, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act physical testing and other disability discrimination rules. Privacy requirements also can be a challenge under these laws unless information collected from screening and other wellness and disease management activities is carefully collected, routed and handled to comply with HIPAA, GINA and other privacy rules. See, e.g, EBSA Issues Guidance on Health PLan Wellness & Disease Management Programs Subject to HIPAA Nondiscrimination Rules; ADAAA Amendment Broader “Disability Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks; Businesses Face Rising Disability Discrimination Enforcement Risks; EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response to ADA Amendments Act. A recent Florida District Court decision upholding one employer’s wellness program on the facts and circumstances may provide helpful insights for employers and health plans planning to use these arrangements on steps and evidence to retain to position to claim certain potential defenses to ADA disability discrimination claims. Until more favorable guidance evolves, however, all employers and health plans using these arrangements need to consider the potential exposures and take steps to position against a potential discrimination claim by private plaintiffs, regulators or both.

Meanwhile, all employers and health plans also should review the existing preventive care coverage provided in their health plans to ensure compliance with expanded federal mandates enacted as part of the sweeping new federal health care reform law. See e.g., Affordable Care To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures.

Vendors enthusiastic about marketing their wellness and disease management programs frequently do not

If you need assistance addressing the legal requirements of your wellness program or other workforce, employee benefit, compensation or risk management concern, contact the author of this update. We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. TheCoalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.You also can access information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here.

About Author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Its Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of Project COPE.

The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Speak up, step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can do so by extending yourself a little bit. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act makes financing care better or worse, the same challenges exist. The real meaning of the enacted reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Americans individually and collectively clearly should monitor and continue to provide input through this critical time to help shape constructive rather than obstructive policy. Regardless of how the policy ultimately evolves, however, Americans, American businesses, and American communities still will need to roll up their sleeves and work to deal with the realities of dealing with ill, aging and disabled people and their families. While the reimbursement and coverage map will change and new government mandates will confine providers, payers and patients, the practical needs and challenges of patients and families will be the same and confusion about the new configuration will create new challenges as patients, providers and payers work through the changes.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Incentives To Get Employee Into Wellness Education Requires Legal Risk Management | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Chides Insurer For “Excessive” Premium Increases After Affordable Care Act Rate Audit

November 21, 2011

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking to publicly shame Everence Insurance of Pennsylvania for charging small businesses what HHS claims are “unreasonably high” premium increases.

According to HHS, its first federal rate review under the Affordable Care Act found that Everence’s 12 percent rate increase for small businesses in Pennsylvania. After reviewing the rate, HHS says independent experts determined the choice of assumptions the company based its rate increase on reflected national data rather than reliable and available state data. These assumptions resulted in what HHS characterizes as an “unreasonably high premium in relation to the benefits provided to small businesses by Everence Insurance of Pennsylvania.

While the Affordable Care Act gave HHS the ability to conduct and publish health insurer rate reviews but does not grant HHS the authority to actually force covered health insurers to change their rates. While some state laws may give state regulators this authority, HHS’ authority remains limited to drawing public attention to carrier rate increases that HHS perceives as excessive.

In an effort to use public opinion to chastise Everence Insurance of Pennsylvania, HHS is using its media might to publicize its findings. “We have called on this insurer to immediately rescind the rate, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain their refusal to do so,” said Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

HHS’s announcement of its findings about Everence Insurance of Pennsylvania marks the first of many reviews that HHS will do in addition to insurance rate reviews already being done by states. HHS says it intends to review all health insurer proposals to raise rates by 10 percent or more this year.

Targeting health insurers proposing rate increases of 10 or more percent is likely to result in a significant number of reviews. A Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits 2011 Annual Survey found average premiums increased 8% for single coverage and 9% for family coverage through May, 2011.

Companies that HHS finds have made excessive rate increases can either reduce their rate hikes or post a justification on their website within 10 days of the rate review determination. As of publication, Everence Insurance of Pennsylvania had not published a public rebuttal to the HHS announcement on its website or indicated how it plans to respond to the announcement. See here.

For More Information Or Assistance

Widely published on health benefit and other related matters, Ms. Stamer’s insights and articles have appeared in HealthLeaders, Modern Health Care, Managed Care Executive, the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News, the Wall Street Journal, the American Bar Association, Aspen Publishers, World At Work, Spencer Publications, SHRM, the International Foundation, Solutions Law Press and many others.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on HHS Chides Insurer For “Excessive” Premium Increases After Affordable Care Act Rate Audit | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health premiums, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Plans To Include Health Care Reform Compliance In Health Plan Audits Beginning In FY 2012; Disputes OIG Criticism Of ACA Enforcement Efforts

October 30, 2011

Insurance companies administering certain self-insurance arrangements for employers or certain other entities may qualify as exempt from the information reporting obligations imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6050W.

Notice 2011-78 provides relief to insurance companies administering certain self-insurance arrangements on behalf of an employer or other entity from any information reporting obligations under section 6050W of the Internal Revenue Code. Insurance companies may rely on the notice until the regulations under section 6050W are amended. The IRS published Notice 2011-78 in the Internal Revenue Bulletin 2011-41 on October 11, 2011.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help reviewing, updating, administering or defending your health benefit or other benefit or insurance program for compliance with ACA or other federal or state employee benefit, insurance, health care or other laws or regulations, or with any other employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls matter, please contact the author of this article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on EBSA Plans To Include Health Care Reform Compliance In Health Plan Audits Beginning In FY 2012; Disputes OIG Criticism Of ACA Enforcement Efforts | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Tax, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Plans To Include Health Care Reform Compliance In Health Plan Audits Beginning In FY 2012; Disputes OIG Criticism Of ACA Enforcement Efforts

October 7, 2011

Look for the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) to begin looking at compliance with the group health plan reform mandates of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA)(collectively “ACA”) requirements as part of health plan audits in its Fiscal Year 2012.

Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis Borzi announced EBSA’s plan to begin examining ACA compliance as part of broader health plan compliance audits that the EBSA intends to conduct in Fiscal Year 2012 in her response to a critique of EBSA’s ACA inplementation and enforcement efforts contained in a September 30, 2011 audit report issued by the Departmentof Labor’s Office of Inspector General. According to that response, EBSA has developed a comprehensive checklist for auditing ACA compliance by health plans that it plans to use as part of health plan audits and has conducted significant staff training as part of its ACA implementation activities. In light of EBSA plans to add ACA compliance to its health plan audits in 2012, employer and union health plans, their sponsors, insurers and administrators should take appropriate steps to ensure that their programs terms and practices are up to date with these requirements.

Ms. Borzi shared the plans for audit as part of a broader rebuttle on behalf of EBSA to criticisms contained in a September 30, 2011 report by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector (OIG) critical of the effectiveness and speed of EBSA’s efforts to implement certain health care reform provisions of ACA.

Enacted on March 23, 2010, ACA makes EBSA, along with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health & Human Services, a key player in the implementation and enforcement of the health benefit targeted reforms enacted as part of its sweeping health care reforms. The September 30, 2011 OIG report identified various areas of improvement that OIG indicated EBSA should make to its implementation efforts based on OIG’s review of efforts by the EBSA to carry out its responsibilities to interpret, implement and enforce these reforms.

OIG Concerns

While its September 30, 2011 report titled “Further Action By EBSA Could Help Ensure PPACA Implementation And Compliance,” (OIG Report) acknowledged the significant actions taken by EBSA toward implementing ACA, the OIG Report still found that EBSA should take additional action to help ensure the timely and effective implementation and enforcement of ACA’s reforms.

The most significant criticism expressed in the OIG report related to the adequacy of work and data reported by EBSA to HHS for HHS to use to define the benefits to be considered “essential benefits” under ACA. Under ACA, EBSA was required to provide HHS with the results of a survey of benefits typically covered by employers that is sufficiently broad to enable HHS to determine benefits provided under a typical employer plan. The OIG Report expresses several concerns about the breadth and validity of the information that EBSA provided to HHS. According to the OIG, EBSA was unable to state that the report it provided HHS was broad enough to encompass all benefits EBSA considered to be typically covered by employers. Moreover, EBSA did not address all benefits HHS requested. As a result, OIG expressed concern that HHS may not be able to ensure that State Insurance Exchanges offer the appropriate essential health benefits required by ACA.

In addition to its critique of EBSA’s essential benefits survey, the OIG also concluded:

EBSA could work with Treasury and HHS to establish a public timeline for addressing the public comments received on interim-final PPACA regulations and issuing final regulations;
EBSA should have included the ACA requirements in its health plan investigations to better leverage its enforcement resources to assist plans in complying with the new regulations; and
EBSA should develop a regulation concerning MEWAs under PPACA Section 6604, regarding the applicability of State law as a means to combat fraud and abuse.

In light of these findings, the OIG recommended that EBSA take the following actions to strengthen its ACA implementation and enforcement actions:

Work with the Departments of HHS, Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget to establish specific timetables to respond to public comments and issue final regulations;
Incorporate the ACA requirements immediately into the enforcement program to assist plans in complying with ACA;
Provide HHS with the results of a survey of benefits typically covered by employers that is sufficiently broad to enable HHS to determine benefits provided under a typical employer plan; and
Proceed with rulemaking relative to MEWAs under ACA section 6604.

EBSA Says Will Start Checking ACA Compliance in FY 2012 But Response Disputes Certain OIG Findings

While agreeing with the first and last recommendations, Ms. Borzi defended EBSA’s decision to delay auditing of health plan compliance with ACA and the adequacy of the survey data it reported to HHS for use in establishing essential benefits under ACA.

Concerning the auditing, Ms. Borzi said that EBSA has developed a comprehensive checklist to promote consistent investigations of ACA compliance, which EBSA plans to begin using when it conducts compliance assessments as part of its Fiscal Year 2012 Health Benefits Security Project as part of a broad range of implementation activities that EBSA has performed. Ms. Borzi’s response to the OIG recommendations indicated that EBSA disagrees with OIG’s assessment that EBSA should be auditing compliance with ACA as part of its current year audits. Rather, Ms. Borzi indicated that EBSA’s assessment and experience leads it to believe it more suitable for EBSA to use a phased implementation approach under which EBSA which delayed ACA compliance audits pending the development of regulations and after plans and insurers have had the opportunity to proccss the implementing regulations and related guidance and benefit from EBSA’s extensive outreach.

Ms. Borzi also took exception to the OIG’s criticism of EBSA’s survey. In her response, she states that the report EBSA made to HHS “fully satisfies” the requirements of ACA. She pointed out that ACA “clearly requires the Secretary of HHS, rather than the Secretary of Labor, to determine the scope of benefits offered by a typical employer plan. Thc stated purpose of the Secretary of Labor’s survey is to inform this determination.” According to Ms. Borzi, the survey is based on the National Compensation Survey conducted regularly by the Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics uses a large, nationally representative sample of employers to collect detailed information on whether particular benefits are included in employer health plans. Ms. Borzi concluded that this survey “will al1ow the Secretary of HHS to determine which are offered by a typical employer plan.

Likewise, Ms. Borzi disagreed with the OIG’s criticism that the report provided to HHS does not expressly tate which benefits are “typical” as unfounded. According to Ms. Borzi, the statute docs not require the DOL to determine a specified threshold of incidence above which (and only above which) the benefit should be considered “typical.” As a result, Ms. Borzi concluded that the EBSA report, by providing detailed data on the incidence of different benefits, fulfills the statutory purpose and requirements without taking on the function of the Secretary of HHS.

Ms. Borzi’s response also reported the EBSA’s disagreement with the OIG’s assertion that EBSA’s approach to the report could impair the public comment process. She stated that the report and associated supporting materials are easily available to the public and that commcntcrs are free to provide their views on the survey and on what benefits arc offered by a typical employer plan. Furthermore,Ms. Borzi pointed to planned opportunities for public input announced by the Secretary of HHS as offering additional opportunities for public input.

For More Information Or Assistance

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on EBSA Plans To Include Health Care Reform Compliance In Health Plan Audits Beginning In FY 2012; Disputes OIG Criticism Of ACA Enforcement Efforts | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Hires APP Design, Inc. To Run Patient E-Consent Trial Project

October 3, 2011

ONC’s Office of the Chief Privacy Officer recently awarded a contract to APP Design, Inc. to find an efficient, effective, and creative way to help patients better understand their choices about whether and when their health care provider can share their health information electronically, including sharing it with a health information exchange organization. The project team will design, develop, and pilot innovative ways to electronically carry out existing patient choice policies, while improving business processes for health care providers. To learn more about the E-Consent Trial project, please see the Statement of Work. ONC’s formal launch of the E-Consent Trial Project will be in October.

For Assistance or Additional Information

Nationally and internationally known for her knowledge and work on health and other employee benefit matters and engaging and informative presentations, attorney, author and policy advocate Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help you prepare your plan and organization to cope with these and other challenges of understanding and coping with health care reform.

Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPPT Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, incoming ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Plan Committee Vice Chair, former ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, past Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Employee Benefit News Editorial Advisory Board Member, Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law and a widely published speaker and author, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising businesses, plans, fiduciaries, insurers and governments on health care, retirement, employment, insurance, :and tax program design, administration, defense and policy and related employment, insurance and health care matters. Her experience includes extensive experience advising insured and self-insured ERISA group medical and other plans, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage plans, mini-med, high-deductible and other consumer driven medical, long-term care, occupational injury, ex-pat, association, fraternal benefit and other managed care and medical benefit plans and insurers, their service providers, insurers, sponsors, fiduciaries, technology providers and others. A primary drafter of the Bolivian pension law, Ms. Stamer also has more than 30 years experience working on legislative and regulatory health care, pension, workforce, education and immigration reform matters including extensive work on the Pension Protection & Affordable Care Act, HIPAA, COBRA, state managed care and other insurance and other laws. In addition to her experience advising governments and others internationally about these matters, she regularly advises and represents employers, employee benefit plans, insurers, health care and managed care providers and others about evolving laws and regulations and assists them in dealing with Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, Immigration and Customs, OCR, OIG, CMS and other HHS agenices, the FTC, the Justice Department, state insruance and health departments, and others.

A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. also regularly publishes and speaks for a broad range of organizations including American Bar Association, Aspen Publishers, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Spencer Publications, SHRM, the International Foundation, Solutions Law Press and many others. She currently or previously has served on the editorial advisory board of Employee Benefits News, BNA Employee Benefits CDRolm and a wide range of other highly regarded publications. Her insights on these and other matters have appeared in Managed Care Executive, Health Leaders, Private Payers News, the Wall Street Journal, various publications of the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen, Atlantic Information Serices, the Wall Street Journal, and many other industry and news publications. In recognition of this extensive record of employee benefit experience and involvement, Ms. Stamer recently was selected to be inducted as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on ONC Hires APP Design, Inc. To Run Patient E-Consent Trial Project | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Electronic Consents, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, ONC, Patient Empowerment, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Projects Medicare Advantage Enrollment Will Rise As Premiums Decline In 2012; Plans Face Increased Regulation & Enforcement

September 25, 2011

Medicare Advantage enrollment will rise and premiums will decline in 2012. While plans can expect increased enrollment, they also face increasing challenges in managing the demands of increased government regulation under Health Care Reform and other new regulations, as well as rising governmental scrutiny of premiums and compliance. Consequently, while more individuals than ever are expected to sign up for Medicare Advantage Plan coverage, the plans still face significant compliance and operational challenges.

According to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) , Medicare Advantage premiums on average will be 4% lower in 2012 than in 2011. Meanwhile HHS reports that Medicare Advantage plans project enrollment to increase by 10%. This follows an earlier HHS announcement that average prescription drug plan premiums will remain virtually unchanged in 2012.

Of people with Medicare, HHS reports 99.7% continue to enjoy access to a Medicare Advantage plan, and benefits will remain consistent with those offered in 2011. To offset declining premiums and other costs, however, many industry experts expect that plans will make greater use of technology in place of human staffing, cut back on broker compensation and utilization and implement other operational changes to help control operations costs.

While many Medicare Adtange and Medicaid Advantage Plans will benefit from increased enrollment, producing promised benefits and avoiding regulatory sanctions amid tightening budgets remains a challenge for many of these plans. Medicare and Medicaid Advantage plans are tightly regulated by federal and state law. Over the past few years, the compliance, premiums, profits and other activities of these and other health plans have been heavily scruitinzed by Congress and federal and state regulators. As part of the stepped up health care fraud and other cost containment efforts, federal regulators have stepped up audit and enforcement against these programs. Several plans have suffered administrative sanctions or other discipline under these laws. Most commentatorys anticipate this scrutiny to expand in 2012.

Learn more here.

For Assistance or Additional Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on HHS Projects Medicare Advantage Enrollment Will Rise As Premiums Decline In 2012; Plans Face Increased Regulation & Enforcement | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Credits Health Reform For Getting Health Coverage For Added 1 Million Young Adults

September 22, 2011

The Department of Health & Human Services is touting the Affordable Care Act as helping 1 million young adults get health coverage. On September 21, 2011, HHS announced that data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that the Affordable Care Act has helped increase the number of young adults who have health insurance. According to HHS, data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) shows that in the first quarter of 2011, the percentage of adults between the ages of 19 and 25 with health insurance increased by 3.5 percentage points, representing approximately 1 million additional young adults with insurance coverage compared to a year ago.

Under the Affordable Care Act, most group health plans and insurance contracts offering dependent coverage must continue to offer dependent child coverage for children up to age 26. The obligation to offer dependent child coverage to age 26 generally applies regardless of whether the child is married or otherwise dependent upon the parent for support. Implementing regulations required group health plans and insurers to notify covered persons of these rights and where applicable, offer opportunities to enroll or re-enroll qualifying adult children not enrolled when the law took affect. As the implementation of these rules and the governing guidance continues to evolve, employer and other health plan sponsors, plans, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators need to review and update plan documents, contracts, communications and practices to meet new responsibilities and mitigate risks.

For Help With These Or Other Health Plan Or Employee Benefit Matters

If you would like help reviewing or defending your organizations health plan or other insurance or employee benefit, employment, health care or other practices in light of these or other laws, please contact attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on health and other employee benefit and related workforce, insurance and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with health benefit and insurance matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources programs and practices. She works extensively with plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, technology and other service providers and others to develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on HHS Credits Health Reform For Getting Health Coverage For Added 1 Million Young Adults | Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Affordaable Care Act, Affordable Care Act, Dependent Child, dependent coverage, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

4th Circuit Rejects Two Challenges To Affordable Care Act Constitutionality

September 8, 2011

The Fourth Circuit this morning (September 8, 2011) published decisions ruled rejecting two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on jurisdictional grounds in Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virgina v. Sebelius.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss this new development and other health care reform issues when she speaks to the Houston Chapter of WEB at 11:30 a.m on September 14, 2011 on “Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do.” The program will cover newly proposed rules that will require health plans and health plan issuers to provide a new summary of benefits and coverage beginning in 2012 and other emerging rules imposed under recently engaged health care reform laws. The program is approved for 1 hour of general continuing education credit by the Texas Department of Insurance. Get details and register online at www.webnetwork.org/houston.

As the debate over the validity and future of the sweeping health care reforms enacted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) rages in Congress and the federal courts, employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators face the daunting challenge of keeping their health plans compliant, affordable and relevant in the face of the steady rollout of the deluge of new mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act and other evolving health plan mandates and planning for changes yet to come.

A former national WEB member nationally and internationally known for her knowledge and work on health and other employee benefit matters and engaging and informative presentations, attorney, author and policy advocate Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help you prepare your plan and organization to cope with these and other challenges of understanding and coping with health care reform.

Ms. Stamer’s presentation will focus on key health care reform information that can help employers and other plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and advisors understand and cope with the effects and responsibilities of health care reform including:

Recently proposed and finalized regulations;
Updating you on the status of litigation challenging the ACA health care reforms in the courts;
Updating you on the key developments affecting health care regulatory reforms likely to impact your health plan;
Sharing an updated roadmap of the currently scheduled implementation of key future health benefit reforms enacted under ACA;
Sharing selected tips and strategies for managing compliance and other risks and deal with uncertainties arising as health care reform continues to evolve; and
Audience questions and discussion of questions and ideas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on 4th Circuit Rejects Two Challenges To Affordable Care Act Constitutionality | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do

September 3, 2011

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak to the Houston Chapter of WEB at 11:30 a.m on September 14, 2011 on “Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do.” The program will cover newly proposed rules that will require health plans and health plan issuers to provide a new summary of benefits and coverage beginning in 2012 and other emerging rules imposed under recently engaged health care reform laws. The program is approved for 1 hour of general continuing education credit by the Texas Department of Insurance. Get details and register online at www.webnetwork.org/houston.

Recently proposed and finalized regulations;
Updating you on the status of litigation challenging the ACA health care reforms in the courts;
Updating you on the key developments affecting health care regulatory reforms likely to impact your health plan;
Sharing an updated roadmap of the currently scheduled implementation of key future health benefit reforms enacted under ACA;
Sharing selected tips and strategies for managing compliance and other risks and deal with uncertainties arising as health care reform continues to evolve; and
Audience questions and discussion of questions and ideas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Employer, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, health issuer, Health Plans, health policy, instruction, Insurance, Insurer, speech, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Affordable Care Act Guidance Helps Some Health Plans Stay Grandfathered

August 2, 2011

Affordable Care Act To Require Health Plans Cover Contraception & Other Women’s Health Procedures Beginning In 2012

Contraception Mandate Might Not Apply To Certain Religious Employer Plans

Starting with plan years beginning after July 31, 2011, most employer and union sponsored group health plans and group and individual health insurers generally must cover contraceptive and certain other preventive services for women (“Women’s Preventive Services”) at no cost to comply with federal rules that these programs cover preventive care for members with no cost sharing enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

On Monday, August 1, 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) on Monday, August 1, 2011 announced guidelines (Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines”) that add contraception and a list of women’s health procedures to the preventive care procedures that ACA requires covered health plans and health insurance policies covered by the Affordable Care Act to cover without cost to members. ACA’s general preventive coverage rules generally have required covered health plans and policies to cover without cost a broad list of other preventive care procedures since the first plan year beginning after September 22, 2009.

Interim Final Regulations implementing ACA’s new preventive care mandate published July 14, 2010 interpreted this ACA preventive care mandate broadly to dictate that ACA covered health plans and health insurers cover as preventive services at no member cost hundreds of procedures.

Concerning the Women’s Preventive Services, however, the Interim Final Regulations delayed implementation of requirements to cover Women’s Preventive Services until August 1, 2011 to give time to HRSA time to issue its recommendations about what procedures should qualify as Women’s Preventive Services. When HRSA failed to finalize its input by August 1, 2011, HHS finalized its list of required Women’s Preventive Services now rather than to continue waiting for HRSA’s final input.

Finalization of the list of required Women’s Preventive Services now means covered health plans and policies must add coverage for these listed procedures with no co-pay beginning with all post-July 31, 2012 plan years.

While the published list of required Women’s Preventive Services generally mandates that ACA-covered health plans and policies cover contraceptive services for women at no cost beginning in 2012, some plans sponsored by religious employers and group health policies covering these groups may be exempt from the duty to coverage contraception under a new regulation that HHS, along with the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Services Administration (“EBSA) and the Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)(collectively, the “Agencies”) will jointly publish in the Federal Register on August 3, 2011. See here for more detailed information.

Plans & Insurers Should Review & Update Preventive Care & Other Wellness Benefits

Non-grandfathered health plans and policies, their sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should carefully review and update their health plans for compliance with the existing preventive care mandates and other evolving rules about disease management and wellness benefits and coverages, as well as to consider the impending requirement to comply with additional Women’s Preventive Services coverage requirements in 2012 as part of their plan design and cost projections.

Existing health plans and health insurance should be reviewed to ensure that the programs appropriately cover all preventive services currently required by the applicable ACA mandates or other laws and re-reviewed for compliance with any updated rules before each plan year to identify any additional costs, changes to plan documents, communications, administrative procedures and vendor contracts required to administer the health plan in accordance with existing rules. For 2012, this should specifically consider the need to comply with the new Women’s Preventive Services coverage requirements that take effect next plan year also should be considered.

In addition to specifically planning for compliance with ACA’s preventive services coverage mandates, all health plans and policies, their sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should review the other wellness and disease management components of their plans. In addition to ACA compliance, these arrangements may need redesign to minimize emerging exposures to challenge by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or private plaintiffs under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Since the Obama Administration took office, the EEOC has taken the position that many common wellness and disease management programs violate the ADA. In addition to these exposures, amendments to the nondiscrimination requirements of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), new nondiscrimination rules added by the Genetic Information & Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), federal mental health parity rules, evolving Affordable Care Act claims, coverage and other rules and guidance about essential benefits and other statutory, regulatory and enforcement changes often require updates to common disease management and wellness programs as well as other health plan provisions. Appropriate steps should be taken to review and update these and other plan terms, procedures, communications and practices to maintain compliance and support the ability to enforce plan terms and rely on plan cost projections.

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer frequently conducts training and publishes on these and other matters. She is scheduled to speak about these and other changing health plan requirements in light of health care reform at the September 14, 2011 Houston WEB Chapter lunch and will be conducting briefings on preventive care, wellness and disease management and other rules for several other organizations over the next few months. You can find out about upcoming training or other events and get updates at www.CynthiaStamer.com.

For Help With These Or Other Health Plan Or Employee Benefit Matter

If you would like help reviewing or defending your organizations health plan or other insurance or employee benefit and employment practices in light of these or other laws, please contact attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 23 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on employee benefit and related matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources programs and practices. She works extensively with plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, technology and other service providers and others to develop and operate legally defensible programs, practices and policies that promote the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters who is active in many other employee benefits, human resources and other management focused organizations.

Ms. Stamer is scheduled to conduct training on these and other health benefit requirements for a number of organizations over the upcoming month. For information about these and other training opportunities or for other resources and information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

For Help or More Information

If you have questions or need help understanding or responding to the Regulations, with other health benefit design, administration or operations concerns, or with other employee benefits, compensation, labor or employment or other workforce management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment attorney and management consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, and a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her more than 23 years pragmatic and innovative health program work.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization with extensive leading edge health plan experience, Ms. Stamer has worked continuously throughout her career helping health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and others design, administer and defend health and other employee benefit and insurance programs domestically and internationally. She is widely recognized for her experience helping design and implement legally compliant self-insured and insured health reimbursement, mini-med, high-deductible health plans, limited benefit plans, 24-hour and occupational medicine, ex-pat and medical tourism, deductible reimbursement and other creative health benefit programs to solve a wide range of financial and other challenges while coping with changing regulatory and market realities. Her work includes both working with clients to design, document, implement and administer these and other arrangements, as well as the development of wellness and disease management, claims administration and appeals, eligibility, and other administrative services, processes and technologies. She also works with plan fiduciaries, plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, brokers and advisors, bankruptcy trustees, creditors, debtors, service providers and their officers and directors about the prevention, investigation, mitigation and resolutions of civil and criminal liability arising from suspected or known benefit administration claims, breaches of fiduciary duty, privacy and data security breach, vendor disputes and other disputes arising in relation to employee benefit and insurance arrangements. As a continuing part of this representation, Ms. Stamer regularly represents and defends plan sponsors, fiduciaries, third party administrators and other service providers and management officials in dealings with the Department of Labor, Department of Justice, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Defense, Securities and Exchange Commission, state insurance regulators, state attorneys general and other federal and state regulators and prosecutors and private plaintiffs in connection with investigations, prosecutions, audits and other actions arising from employee benefit, insurance and related arrangements and products.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble Premier AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. In addition to her many ABA leadership involvements, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, World At Work, the ICEBS, SHRM and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do
Labor Department 2011 Stats Show Employer Health Coverage & Other Benefit Statistics
Borzi Tells House Committee Current Fiduciary Regs Flawed; Must Fix Loopholes In Investment Advisor Definition To Protect Plans
Labor Department 2011 Stats Show Employer Health Coverage & Other Benefit Statistics
Conviction Highlights Risks Of Misleading Investors
DOL Considers Easing Rules For Electronic Benefit Communications
Improving The Effectiveness Of Compliance & Risk Management By Getting Hr On The Compliance Team
IRS Establishes Safe Harbor Election For Allocating Success-Based Fees Paid On Certain Business Transactions
IRS Changing Substantiation Rules For Business Travel Expenses
9/22/11 Cutoff To Apply For Affordable Care Act Annual Limit Temporary Waiver
Spectrum Healthcare NLRB Charge Settlement Highlights Need To Defend Against Possible Unfair Labor Practices & Other Union Exposures
IRS Releases Health Savings Account, High Deductible Health Plan 2012 Indexed Amounts
IRS Guidance On Affordable Care Act Requirement That Employers Report Cost Of Health Coverage On W-2 Released
Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans Or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities
Health Plans, Insurers Get Limited & Imperfect Relief From Grace Period Extension For Some New Affordable Care Act Health Claims & Appeals Rules
EEOC Finalizes Updates To Disability Regulations In Response To Ada Amendments Act: Employers Should Manage Risks
Employer Charged With Misclassifying & Underpaying Workers To Pay $754,578 FLSA Back Pay Settlement
Avoiding Liability For Another’s Health Plan Fraud
Health Plans & Employers Beware! $4.3 Million Civil Penalty Shows OCR Serious About HIPAA Enforcement
IRS Expands When HFSAS & HRAs May Allow Over-The-Counter Drug Purchases With Drug Cards
DOL Announces Changes To H-2b Prevailing Wage Calculation Rules
$1 Million + FLSA Overtime Settlement Shows Employers Should Tighten On-Call, Other Wage & Hour Practices
Affordable Care Act Grandfathered Plan Rules Loosened To Allow Insured Plans Making Some Insurance Changes To Qualify
Update Employment Practices To Manage Genetic Info Discrimination Risks Under New EEOC Final Gina Regulations
EEOC Attacks Medical Leave Denials As Prohibited Disability Discrimination
DOL Proposes To Expand Investment Related Services Giving Rise To Erisa Fiduciary Status As Investment Fiduciary

Comments Off on New Affordable Care Act Guidance Helps Some Health Plans Stay Grandfathered | 105(h), ADA, Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, grandfathered health plan, grandfathered plan, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, medical insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do

July 29, 2011

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak to the Houston Chapter of WEB at 11:30 a.m on September 14, 2011 on “Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do.” Get details and register online at www.webnetwork.org/houston.

Updating you on the status of litigation challenging the ACA health care reforms in the courts;
Updating you on the key developments affecting health care regulatory reforms likely to impact your health plan;
Sharing an updated roadmap of the currently scheduled implementation of key future health benefit reforms enacted under ACA;
Sharing selected tips and strategies for managing compliance and other risks and deal with uncertainties arising as health care reform continues to evolve; and
Audience questions and discussion of questions and ideas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Malpractice, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, Preemption, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Wellness Programs | Tagged: benefits, Employee Benefits, employee benefits policy, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, health policy, Insurance, Speeches, Training, WEB | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Department 2011 Stats Show Employer Health Coverage & Other Benefit Statistics

July 29, 2011

A new 2011 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Study of employee benefits offered shares key insights into how many employers offer employer-provided health and other benefits The study shows that health and other benefits offered by employers, how much employers contribute and when employees enroll in offered benefits varies widely varied by whether the employer is a government or private sector employer, the industry, size and other characteristics of the employer and the income, profession, education and other characteristics of the employee. It is no surprise that government employers that can pass along costs to taxpayers provide coverage more broadly and subsidize more of the cost.

With regard to health benefits, the report reveals that practices vary significantly among employers, on average, medical care benefits were available to 69 percent of private industry workers and half of workers participated in a medical plan. For single coverage, private sector employers paid 80 percent of the medical care premiums for full-time workers and 69 percent of medical care premiums for full-time workers in private industry. Data shows employees often elect not to take offered coverage.

In addition to data on medical benefits, the study also reports that paid leave remains the most commonly provided benefit nationally and includes data on other benefits.

The DOL highlights 1st time reporting of domestic partner status for 1st time in its announcement. Data also provided on paid vacation and other leave.

Read report summary and access report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.nr0.htm.

For Help or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Labor Department 2011 Stats Show Employer Health Coverage & Other Benefit Statistics | 105(h), Absenteeism, Affordable Care Act, COBRA, Disability, Disability, Disability Plans, Employers, ERISA, FMLA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, grandfathered health plan, grandfathered plan, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, medical insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Releases Health Savings Account, High Deductible Health Plan 2012 Indexed Amounts

May 18, 2011

The Department of Treasury released the inflation adjusted amounts for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) applicable for purposes of § 223 of the Internal Revenue Code for 2012.

Under Revenue Procedure 2011-32, for 2012 the following inflation adjusted amounts will apply for purposes of applying the HSA limits during 2012:

Annual Contribution Limitation

For calendar year 2012, the annual limitation on deductions under § 223(b)(2)(A) is:

For an individual with self-only coverage under a high deductible health plan is $3,100.
For an individual with family coverage under a high deductible health plan is $6,250.

High Deductible Health Plan

For calendar year 2012, Revenue Procedure 2011-32 leaves the minimum deductible allowable for an arrangement to qualify as a “high deductible health plan” unchanged from the amounts implemented for 2011. This means that in 2012 a “high deductible health plan” will continue to be defined under § 223(c)(2)(A) as a health plan with an annual deductible that is not less than:

$1,200 for self-only coverage or
$2,400 for family coverage, and the annual out-of pocket expenses (deductibles, co-payments, and other amounts, but not premiums) do not exceed $6,050 for self-only coverage or $12,100 for family coverage.

HSA sponsors and administrators will want to ensure that their HSA plan documents, communications are timely and properly updated to reflect the adjusted numbers well in advance to the 2012 enrollment period. At the same time, high deductible health plan and HSA plan sponsors and administrators also should verify that their programs, as well as any health care flexible spending arrangements are updated for changes such as new rules conditioning reimbursement of over-the-counter medical expenses by HSAs and health care flexible spending accounts on the fulfillment of prescription requirements enacted as part of health care reform as well as other updates.

For Help or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on IRS Releases Health Savings Account, High Deductible Health Plan 2012 Indexed Amounts | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, grandfathered health plan, grandfathered plan, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, medical insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Affordable Care Act Guidance Helps Some Health Plans Stay Grandfathered

April 20, 2011

Guidance published by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and the Treasury (the Agencies) on April 1, 2011 provides welcome clarifications about the workings of the “grandfathered health plan rules” that play a key role in determining what health plans and insurance policies must comply with certain key health insurance coverage reforms enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Reconciliation Act) (collectively, the Affordable Care Act).

Health plans, health insurers and sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers of these arrangements should monitor and consider carefully this and other emerging guidance when making decisions about the design and administration of health benefit programs in response to the Affordable Care Act.

Grandfathered Health Plan Status A Key Determinant of What Health Care Reform Rules Apply

While the Affordable Care Act generally requires that health plans and health insurance policies comply with a series of new mandates established by the Affordable Care Act beginning with the first plan year that begins after September 22, 2010, the Affordable Care Act, Interim Final Regulations originally jointly published June 17, 2010 as subsequently amended on November 17, 2011 (the Regulations).provide that certain plans or coverage existing on March 23, 2010 that qualify as “grandfathered health plans” are subject to only certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and Regulations refer to these plans or health insurance coverage as “grandfathered health plans.”

Qualifying As Grandfathered Health Plan

For plans and insurers wishing to preserve the grandfathered health plan status of their programs, understanding when changes or other events affect the health plan’s ability to qualify as a grandfathered health plan is critical to understanding the consequences and potential costs of proposed plan design changes or certain other actions.

For purposes of determining when an arrangement that existed on March 22, 2010 qualifies as a “grandfathered health plan” for purposes of ACA, the Regulations require that the plan meet certain notification, documentation and other requirements set forth in the Regulations. The Regulation also provides a health plan that existed on March 23, 2010 will lose its eligibility for grandfathered status if the plan is amended to make significant changes that cut benefits or increase costs to covered persons. In order to avoid a loss of grandfathered health plan status, the Regulations require that except for certain “routine changes” identified in the Regulation, the health plan not have been modified or impacted by certain other changes after March 22, 2011. See HHS, DOL & IRS Rules Define “Grandfathered” Group Health Plans & Health Insurance Coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Consequently, sponsors, insurers and administrators of health plans or health insurance policies that intend to rely upon grandfathered health plan status to limit the mandates applicable to their programs under the Affordable Care Act need a clear understanding of what changes and events will disqualify their plan or program for grandfathered health plans status.

April 1 Guidance

The FAQIV guidance jointly published April 1 by the Agencies helps to clarify certain aspects of the workings of the grandfathered health plan rules as construed and implemented under these Regulations. FAQIV, among other things:

Clarifies the date that a loss of grandfathered status becomes effective as a result of a plan amendment or other change is the date that the plan amendment or other change that will result in the loss of grandfathered status takes effect under the terms of the plan;
Shares a non-exhaustive list of reasons for transferring employees from a grandfathered health plan to another health plan that the Agencies recognize as “bona fide employment-based reasons” that permit the transfer of employees from one grandfathered health plan to another plan without a loss of grandfathered health plan status;
States that forfeiture of grandfathered health plan status does not result solely as a result of an increase in the participant co-payment or other cost-sharing under a health plan that results because a drug originally classified as having no generic alternative changes because a generic alternative becomes available and is added to the formulary, with a resulting increase in the cost-sharing level for the brand-name drug;
States that for purposes of determining if a health plan has experienced a change in the employer contribution rate that would result in a loss of grandfathered health plan status in a health plan where the employer contribution is determined based on a formula, an increase in the amount of the required employee contribution resulting as plan costs increase will not trigger a loss of grandfathered status if the employer contribution formula (or its underlying elements used to calculate the contribution) does not change;
Provides added guidance about when a health plan can add or expand value based design features to a health plan without forfeiting its grandfathered health plan status; and
Invites public input about how the Agencies should treat value based plan design or wellness program related additions or changes to health plans for purposes of the grandfathered health plan rules.

FAQIV is only one of a continuous stream of new guidance about the Affordable Care Act and other federal and state health benefit program mandates which plan sponsors, insurers, administrators and fiduciaries need to understand and respond to effectively as they deal with their health benefit programs and arrangements. Ms. Stamer is scheduled to conduct training on these and other health benefit requirements for a number of organizations over the upcoming month. For information about these and other training opportunities or for other resources and information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

For Help or More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on New Affordable Care Act Guidance Helps Some Health Plans Stay Grandfathered | 105(h), Affordable Care Act, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, grandfathered health plan, grandfathered plan, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, medical insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans, Insurers Get Limited & Imperfect Relief From Grace Period Extension For Some New Affordable Care Act Health Claims & Appeals Rules

March 24, 2011

The Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services and Internal Revenue Service are extending a previously announced enforcement grace period under which the agencies will not take enforcement against health plans or health insurers that attempt to operate in good faith compliance with, but fail to meet certain new requirements for handing medical claims and appeals enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act). While health plans and insurers working in good faith to comply with the new requirements may find the enforcement relief helpful for dealing with some areas of uncertainty about the interpretation of certain requirements, it is important to keep in mind that the enforcement grace period provides only limited and somewhat imperfect relief. As a result, health plans, health insurers and those responsible for their design and administration are encouraged to continue to move forward on efforts to comply with the new requirement in thoughtful and well-documented manners despite the announced grace period extension.

New Claims & Appeals Requirements & Enforcement Grace Period

As signed into law on March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act generally requires that health plans and health insurance policies that are not “grandfathered” to begin complying with a series of new requirements by the first day of the first plan year that begins after September 22, 2010. These new requirements include a number of new requirements about the way that nongrandfathered health plans and health insurance policies handle medical claims and appeals. For instance, the Affordable Care Act as construed by the agencies in interim final regulations published by the agencies on July 23, 201 will require that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers issuing non-grandfathered health insurance plans and policies:

Implement specified internal and external review procedures that among other things mandate independent external review of medical judgment based decisions in accordance with the regulations for reviews of appeals of medical judgment based denials;
Provide a broad range of new information in notices regarding claims and do so in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner;
Provide continued coverage pending the outcome of an internal appeal; and
Comply with a laundry list of additional criteria for ensuring that a claimant receives a full and fair review in addition to complying with the requirements of existing Labor Department claims and appeals procedures.

After the agencies jointly published interim final regulations defining and implementing these requirements on July 23, 2010, last September the agencies announced that they would not enforce certain elements (but not all) of the new requirements set forth in the interim final regulations against covered health plans or health insurers seeking to comply in good faith with the new requirements through July 1, 2011. In the March 18, 2011 announcement, the Department of Labor said that the agencies now have agreed to extend this reprieve from agency enforcement of the requirements listed in the guidance against plans seeking to comply in good faith with the new requirements until plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.

While offering welcome relief, covered health plans and insurers, their sponsors and issuers should not over-estimate the reach and protection provided by this new guidance. For instance:

First, in order to qualify for the enforcement grace period, efforts must be made to administer the health plan or health insurance policy in good faith compliance with the new requirements during the enforcement grace period.
Second, the enforcement grace period provides only limited relief. The extension to 2012 only four of a series of new requirements set forth in the interim final regulations. Nongrandfathered plans and their administrators and insurers remain accountable for prudently administering claims and appeals in accordance with all other requirements of the Affordable Care Act as well as pre-existing claims and appeals regulations set forth in 2000 claims regulations issued by the Department of Labor pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Third, the enforcement grace period guidance only means that the agencies will not exercise their power to take action against a non-compliant plan. It does not prevent plan members, health care providers with benefit assignments or other plan beneficiaries from bringing lawsuits against health plans, health insurers or their administrators for failing to comply with the new requirements during post- September 22, 2010 plan years even if the enforcement grace period otherwise protects the plan or insurer from agency enforcement action. This means that health insurers and health plans may still run the risk that plan members or beneficiaries will ask courts to reverse claims or appeals denials or impose other penalties and sanctions against plans or their fiduciaries for failing to meet the new requirements for post-September 22, 2010 plan years.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the grace period guidance requires nongrandfathered plans and insurers to make “good faith” efforts to comply with the requirements covered by the relief during the grace period in order to be eligible to claim the relief offered by the enforcement grace period guidance.

Consequently, despite the relief announced March 18, nongrandfathered health plans still have significant work to do to comply with the new Affordable Care Act claims and appeals requirements even during the announced enforcement grace period.

For Help With Affordable Care Act or Other Employee Benefits or HR Needs

If you have any questions or need help responding to the Affordable Care Act or other any other health plan or insurance employee benefit, compensation, workforce or internal control concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press

Comments Off on Health Plans, Insurers Get Limited & Imperfect Relief From Grace Period Extension For Some New Affordable Care Act Health Claims & Appeals Rules | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Public Policy | Tagged: affordale care act, Appeals, appeals procedure, claims procedure, Claims Regulations, ERISA, external appeals, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurer, internal claims, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS, HHS & DOL To Delay Enforcement of New Insured Group Health Plan Non-Discrimination Rules Pending Guidance; Seek Public Input on Rules

January 24, 2011

Implications of Announced Reprieve on Possible Participant Suits Unclear

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) recently announced that the agencies do not plan to enforce new rules that prohibit non-grandfathered insured group health plans from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees until guidance is published on the workings of certain key elements of these requirements. The IRS announced the relief from enforcement of the new insured group health plan nondiscrimination requirements enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) in Notice 2011-1, which was published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin on January 7, 2011. According to Notice 2011-1, the Agencies determined that questions about the construction of certain aspects of the non-discrimination rules made it inappropriate to require insured group health plans to comply or to impose sanctions for their failure to comply with the new non-discrimination rules until the agencies publish certain regulations or other administrative guidance. According to Notice 2011-1, pending the publication of further guidance, the agencies do not intend to enforce sanctions for non-compliance with the new non-discrimination rules and will not require insured group health plan sponsors to file IRS Form 8928 with respect to excise taxes resulting from the incorporation of Public Health Services Act (PHS Act) § 2716 into Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 9815. Its unclear how this guidance will impact possible participant or beneficiary suits to enforce the new rules under Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

New Insured Plan Non-Discrimination Rules

As part of the Affordable Care Act health care reforms, Congress amended the PHS, Code and ERISA to require insured non-grandfathered group health plans to satisfy non-discrimination rules like those applicable to self-insured group health plans under Code § 105(h). Unlike the taxation of highly compensated participants that generally results from a discriminatory self-insured group health plan, however, the Affordable Care Act provides for potentially draconian sanctions against an insured group health plan or its sponsor when an insured group health plan violates these non-discrimination requirements.

The Affordable Care Act generally provides that if a non-grandfathered insured employer-sponsored group health plan that discriminates in favor of highly compensated employees in a manner that would violate the non-discrimination requirements of Code § 105(h)(2) in any post-September 22, 2010 plan year, the plan or plan sponsor may face significant excise taxes, civil money penalties, and lawsuits to compel it to provide nondiscriminatory benefits to non-highly compensated participants equivalent to the discriminatory benefits provided to highly compensated participants.

According to Notice 2011-1, the agencies determined from initial public comments that without regulations or other administrative guidance under PSA § 2716, plan sponsors are uncertain how to apply the nondiscrimination provisions. Accordingly, Notice 2011-1 indicates that the agencies decided that their enforcement of the new insured group health plan nondiscrimination rules should be delayed until the publication of that guidance. Notice 2011-1 invites concerned plan sponsors and others to submit comments on a broad range of concerns relating to this guidance. According to Notice 2011-1, the deadline for submission of this input is March 11, 2011.

Implications of Relief For Insured Group Health Plans

While Notice 2011-1 indicates that HHS and DOL also plan to hold off enforcement of the new non-discrimination rules, it is unclear what effect, if any, the relief announced in the Notice will have on the ability of participants and beneficiaries to enforce the requirements by filing civil lawsuits under ERISA. Under ERISA § 512, participants and beneficiaries generally have the ability to sue plans and their fiduciaries for equitable relief to enforce violations of ERISA. As amended by the Affordable Care Act, the new non-discrimination requirements for insured group health plans of ERISA § 715(a)(1) are effective for all post-September 22, 2010 plan years. Accordingly, while insured group health plans and their sponsors still potentially risk participant or beneficiary law suits if their program is discriminatory.

While awaiting further guidance from the agencies, insured and self-insured group health plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries should document their attempt to prudently evaluate and determine their responsibilities under the non-discrimination rules, and other federal laws. In addition, plans, their fiduciaries, sponsors and service providers should begin implementing and administering the data collection and other processes that they are likely to need to test their programs for discrimination and perform other requirements. To encourage the agencies to adopt regulations that are sensitive to the challenges of plan sponsors and plans in meeting these requirements, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and service providers also should provide input to the agencies and Congressional health care policy leaders about these concerns.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance submitting comments to the agencies, evaluating or updating your plans in response to these new rules or auditing or assessing, updating or defending other labor and employment, employee benefit or compensation practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in exploring other Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ tools, products, training and other resources here and reading some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ human resources or other updates here.

Comments Off on IRS, HHS & DOL To Delay Enforcement of New Insured Group Health Plan Non-Discrimination Rules Pending Guidance; Seek Public Input on Rules | 105(h), Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Tax | Tagged: 105(h)(2), Affordable Care Act, Group Health plans, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, medical insurance, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

August 26, 2010

The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) generally mandates that all group and individual health plans and policies comply with these mandates no later than the first plan or policy year beginning after September 22, 2010 unless the plan or policy qualifies as a “grandfathered plan” under the Affordable Care Act. Employer and other health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators of all federally-regulated employment-based health plans should move quickly to update plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, decisional criteria, investigation and decision-making documentation, and claims and appeals-related notification and other communications to comply with a series of new Federal guidance governing health plan claims and appeals published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2010 as further supplemented by additional “safe harbor” external review procedures published in the Federal Register today (August 26, 2010) (collectively the ACA Appeals Rules”).

Although the ACA Appeals Rules technically apply only to non-grandfathered plans, Agency commentary about existing Labor Department health plan claims and appeals procedures published along with the ACA Appeals rules sends a strong signal that the adequacy of all health plan claims and appeals procedures is warranted. As many health plan sponsors and health insurers are deciding that compliance with Affordable Care Act mandates is more cost effective than meeting the conditions that federal regulations require for a health plan to maintain grandfathered plan status, most group health plans and policies will need to be updated to comply with these new rules quickly. Even if a plan qualifies as a grandfathered plan, however, comments contained included the preamble to the July 23, 2010 guidance and recent court decisions send a strong signal that a review and update of existing claims and appeals procedures and practices is warranted. Read more.

For assistance to review and update your health or other employee benefit claims and appeals or other terms, processes, notices and communication or other processes and procedures, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

Learn More About Affordable Care Act Mandates: Order Recording of August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update”

Details of recently released guidance about federal health plan rules applicable to employment-based health plans under the Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulations were among the topics covered in a “2010 Health Plan Update” internet broadcast briefing on Tuesday, August 24 2010. For more information about this briefing, see here. If you are interested in purchasing a recording of this briefing, e-mail here.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance updating your heath care program documentation, policies or procedures in response to these or other requirements or with other employee benefit, insurance or human resources matters, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Current Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefit & Other Compensation Group, a Council Member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer continuously advises employers, health and other employee benefit plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, plan administrators, plan vendors, insurers and others about health program related legal, operational, documentation, public policy, enforcement, privacy, technology, litigation and risk management and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other health and managed care program concerns and practices. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications. To contact Ms. Stamer or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates | Affordable Care Act, Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preemption, Public Policy, Risk Management | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, appeals procedures, Claims, Claims Procedures, ERISA, external review, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Insurance, internal review, self-insured | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

July 23, 2010

Register For August 24^th 2010 Health Plan Update To Catch Up On Latest Federal Health Plan Regulations

Employer and other plan sponsors, administrators, and fiduciaries of non-grandfathered group health plans must move quickly to update their plan documents, administrative procedures and agreements, claims and other communications and other processes and procedures to comply with new regulations (Appeals Rules) implementing tightened health plan claims and appeals rules enacted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) jointly published by the U.S. Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL) and Treasury yesterday (July 23, 2010). The new Appeals Rules are the latest in a wave of new Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations that require quick action by employment based health plans, their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and insurers. Regulations issued in previous weeks by the Departments define when health plans and health insurance policies qualify as “grandfathered” under the Affordable Care Act and interpret and implement many other federal health plan rule changes enacted by the Affordable Care Act. In addition to responding to these Affordable Care Act changes, most group health plans also will require updates in response to other federal health plan rule changes beyond those enacted under the Affordable Care Act. To assist concerned business leaders, plan fiduciaries and plan administrators to understand and cope with these new rules, Solutions Law Press invites you to participate in the live “2010 Health Plan Update,” internet workshop on August 24, 2010 from 11:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Central Time. To register or for other details, see here.

Affordable Care Act Appeals Rules & Other Federal Claims & Appeals Regulations Make Prompt Plan Review & Update Advisable

Currently, all group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must prudently process and administer claims and appeals using reasonable claims and appeals procedures that comply with detailed Labor Department regulations. Recent Supreme Court and other decisions send a strong signal that many group health plans, their insurers, and administrators need to tighten their existing documentation and practices to promote the defensibility of claims and appeal decision making under the existing requirements of ERISA and the existing Labor Department regulations implementing these requirements. These existing claims and appeals requirements generally will continue to apply to all ERISA-covered group health plans without regard to whether the group health plan qualifies as grandfathered or non-grandfathered for purposes of the affordable care act.

The new requirements generally will apply to claims denials and coverage rescissions made by non-grandfathered health plans beginning with the first plan year beginning after September 22, 2010. Furthermore, non-grandfathered group and individual health policies subject to the Appeals Rules also may continue to be required to comply with state-mandated external and/or independent review and other state-imposed claims and appeals procedures.

In addition to complying with existing claims and appeals requirements, the new Appeals Rules also will require that non-grandfathered health plans modify existing claims and appeals procedures to comply with new federal appeals protections mandated under the Affordable Care Act. The Appeals Rules requirements for internal claims and appeals processes generally will apply to any denial, reduction, or termination of, or failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit, including any:

Rescission of coverage as defined in the regulations restricting rescissions
Determination of an individual’s eligibility to participate in a plan or health insurance coverage
Determination that a benefit is not a covered benefit
Imposition of a preexisting condition exclusion, source-of-injury exclusion, network exclusion, or other limitation on otherwise covered benefits
Determination that a benefit is experimental, investigational, or not medically necessary or appropriate
Other denial, reduction, or termination of, or a failure to provide or make a payment (in whole or in part) for a benefit can include both pre-service claims (for example, a claim resulting from the application of any utilization review), as well as post-service claims and
Any other instance where a plan pays less than the total amount of expenses submitted with regard to a claim, including a denial of part of the claim due to the terms of a plan or health insurance coverage regarding co-payments, deductibles, or other cost-sharing requirements.

When applicable, the new Appeals Rules among other things will require that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers issuing non-grandfathered health insurance plans and policies:

Implement specified internal and external review procedures
Must continue to provide continued coverage pending the outcome of an internal appeal
Comply with the Appeals Rules’ additional criteria for ensuring that a claimant receives a full and fair review in addition to complying with the requirements of existing Labor Department claims and appeals procedures.

Highlights of some of these fair review requirements include:

Timely allowing a claimant to review the claim file and to present evidence and testimony as part of the internal claims and appeals process
Before issuing a final internal adverse benefit determination based on a new or additional rationale, timely proving the claimant free of charge, with the rationale
Complying with the Appeals Rules’ requirements for ensuring that all claims and appeals are adjudicated in a manner designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the persons involved in making the decision
Providing certain notifications regarding appeals and other rights as required by the Appeals Rules

The Appeals Rules also state that if a plan or issuer that fails to strictly adhere to all of its requirements with respect to a claim, the claimant may initiate an external review and pursue any available remedies under applicable law, such as judicial review regardless of whether the plan or issuer asserts that it substantially complied with these requirements or that any error it committed was de minimis.

Both Grandfathered & Non-Grandfathered Plans Should Review Existing Claims & Appeals Procedures For Compliance With Existing Labor Department Regulations

Grandfathered health plans will not be required to comply with the new Appeals Rules. Like non-grandfathered plans, however, grandfathered plans will remain covered by the current claims and appeals requirements of ERISA and the existing Labor Department regulations. Along the Labor Department updated its existing claims and appeals regulations a decade ago, many plan fiduciaries, administrators and insurers have failed to fully update their plan documentation, processes and notifications to comply with these highly specific and detailed requirements. Furthermore, most grandfathered health plan sponsors and administrators also will want to consider whether any tightening of their health plan’s claims and appeals processes is warranted by language contained in the preamble to the Appeals Rules that that clarifies the Labor Department’s interpretation of existing claims and appeals procedures.

Other Affordable Care Act & Other Health Plan Rule Changes Require Prompt Action By Group Health Plans, Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Administrators

The Appeals Rules are the latest in a series of recently-issued guidance implementing various health coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act. It follows closely the publication by the Agencies of regulations about when group health plans and insurance qualify as “grandfathered plans” for purposes of determining deadlines for complying with certain health care reform requirements imposed under the Affordable Care Act and a series of other regulations construing and implementing various other Affordable Care Act requirements. For additional information about these other Affordable Care Act requirements, see here.

These Affordable Care Act and other impending federal health plan changes will require employment-based group health plans, their employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, plan administrators and other service providers and insurers to make quick decisions and to act quickly to meet impending federal compliance deadlines while preserving flexibility.

All employer and other group health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators should be prepared to act quickly to update their health plan documents, communications, insurance and vendor agreements and other practices to comply with new federal requirements that become effective under the Affordable Care Act on the first day of the plan year beginning after September 22, 2010 and various other changes in federal health plan rules effective or scheduled to take effect during 2010 or 2011 plan years. Many plan sponsors also may need to act quickly to cancel or revise certain design or vendor changes planned or already implemented since March 23, 2010 to position their health plan to qualify for grandfather status. Quick action also may be needed to preserve options to claim small employer tax credits, retiree medical subsidies or other opportunities.

August 24 “2010 Health Plan Update” Internet Workshop Provides Key Information

The August 24, 2010 “2010 Health Plan Update” briefing will cover the latest guidance on Affordable Care Act and other federal health plan regulatory changes impacting employment-based group health plans and their sponsors for plan years beginning between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011 and other key information to help employers, group health plans, insurers, plan administrators, fiduciaries, broker and others working with these plans to understand and respond to these new requirements including:

How to qualify your health plan as a grandfathered plan under Affordable Care act
How to decide if maintaining grandfathered plan status is worthwhile
Claims & appeals requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Preventive care coverage mandates & wellness program requirements & rules under Affordable Care Act & other federal regulations
Updated dependent child eligibility, pre-existing condition & other requirements for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans
Special enrollment, preexisting condition & other eligibility mandates for grandfathered & non-grandfathered plans under new Affordable Care Act, new FMLA, COBRA, Michelle’s Law, HIPAA & other federal regulations
Mental health & substance abuse, provider choice & other benefit mandates under Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity & other federal rules
Update on other recent & pending Affordable Care Act group health plan rule guidance
Tips to review & update your plans, vendor agreements & processes to meet Affordable Care Act & other federal group health plan dictates
Expected future Affordable Care Act & other federal rule changes & tips for preparing
Practical strategies for responding to new requirements & changing rules
Participant questions

To register or get additional information, see here.

About The Author

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, administrators, fiduciaries, governments and others design, administer and defend innovative health and other employee benefit programs and other human resources, compensation and management policies and practices. Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here. If you need help with human resources or other management, concerns, wish to ask about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

Solutions Law Press & Other Solutions Law Press Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

Comments Off on New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates | Affordable Care Act, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, H.R. 4872, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Leave, medical leave, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Protected Health Information, Tax, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Claims, Claims Procedures, ERISA, Health Care Reform. Health Plans, Health Insurance, Health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks June 9 On “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” In Houston

May 19, 2010

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications for Employers, Health Plans and Employee Benefits Practitioners” at the June 9, 2010 meeting of Houston WEB. The program is scheduled for Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at the DoubleTree Guest Suites, 5353 Westheimer, Houston, Texas from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 pm.

Narrowly passed by Congress in March after a year of contentious debate, the comprehensive health care reform legislation imposes a complex array of reforms impacting employment based health plans, employers, and the insurers and other vendors and administrators of these programs. Ms. Stamer will explore key elements of these reforms impacting employers and employment based health coverage and their implications for employers, employment based health plans, and employee benefits and other attorneys providing advice about these arrangements.

To register or for more information about this event, see here. If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other employee benefit, compensation or labor and employment concerns, contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for assistance at (469) 767-8872 or here.

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping businesses manage labor and employment, employee benefits, performance management and discipline, compliance and internal controls, risk management, and public policy matters including significant, cutting edge experience advising employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others design, administer, and defend defensible, cost-effective health and other employee benefit programs.

As a core focus of her practice, Ms. Stamer works extensively with employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other service providers, insurers, and other clients on health benefit program and product design, documentation, administration, compliance, risk management, and public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts training and speaks extensively on these and related concerns for the ABA, the Bureau of National Affairs and many other organizations. Please join us for what promises to be a most interesting discussion

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here. Her insights on these and other matters appear in Managed Care Executive, Modern Health Care, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, MDNews, Kentucky Physician, and many other national and local publications.

If you need help with human resources or other management, concerns, wish to ask about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks June 9 On “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” In Houston | Affordable Care Act, CHIP, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Payroll Tax, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Public Policy, Risk Management, Tax, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Insurer | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” At May 5 Dallas Bar Association Meeting

March 22, 2010

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss “Health Care Reform: Implications for Employers, Health Plans and Employee Benefits Practitioners” at the May 5, 2010 meeting of Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits/Executive Compensation Section to be held from 12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m. in the Haynes & Boone Ballroom of Dallas Bar Association Belo Mansion located at 2101 Ross Avenue in Dallas, Texas.

Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice and former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Section, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for more than 22 years of work with employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other service providers, insurers, and other clients on health benefit program and product design, documentation, administration, compliance, risk management, and public policy matters. The publisher of Solutions Law Press, Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts training and speaks extensively on these and related concerns for the ABA, the Bureau of National Affairs and many other organizations. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

If you need assistance with evaluating or responding to this new legislation or other employee benefits, employment, compensation or other management concerns, wish to inquire about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; or your other preferred Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here and learn more about other Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Comments Off on Stamer To Discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” At May 5 Dallas Bar Association Meeting | Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, Internal Controls, Payroll Tax, Risk Management, Tax | Tagged: COBRA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Privacy Rule Changes & Posting of Breach Notices On OCR Website Signal New Enforcement Risks For Health Plans, Their Sponsors & Business Associates

February 23, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has begun disclosing on its website the employer and other health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) that report breaches of unsecured protected health information (UPIC) affecting more than 500 individuals as required by new rules enacted as part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). This posting of Covered Entities reporting breaches comes just days after these and other Covered Entities became subject on February 17, 2010 to a host of other tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under Privacy & Security Standards of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) also enacted as part of the HITECH Act. As failing to comply with the amended rules effective February 17, 2010 can trigger obligations under the Breach Regulations and other exposures, prompt action to manage risk under both the Breach Regulations and the revised HIPAA rules is critical to minimize Covered Entity and business associate exposures under both these rules. With criminal, administrative and civil prosecutions of such violations increasing and likely to expand, timely action to manage compliance and other risks is warranted. Health plans and their business associates also should prepare for increased awareness and oversight of the adequacy of their medical information safeguards as these disclosures and other enforcement actions heighten interest and awareness of employees and others in these rules.

Covered Entity Breach Notification Requirements

OCR posted the initial list of Covered Entities disclosing these breaches on its website for the first time yesterday (February 22, 2010) to comply with breach notification requirements imposed by Section 164.408 of the interim “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) published here.

The Breach Regulation requires Covered Entities subject to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals, OCR and certain other parties following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information occurring on or after September 23, 2009. The Breach Regulation implements new breach notification requirements added to HIPAA by Section 13402(e)(3) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). It and the posting of Covered Entities reporting breaches of protected health information are part of the ongoing implementation and enforcement of new and stricter personal health information privacy and data security requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under provisions of the HITECH Act and expanded remedies for violations signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

You can review the list of Covered Entities that have reported breaches on the OCR website here. Learn more about the Breach Regulation requirements here.

Broader & Stricter Medical Privacy Mandates Effective 2/17/210

Just last Wednesday (February 17, 2010) Covered Entities and their business associates also became subject to tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under amendments to HIPAA’s Privacy & Security Standards enacted by the HITECH Act. The changes that became effective on February 17, 2010 generally require that Covered Entities and their business associates make specific changes to update their written policies, operational procedures, privacy notices, business associate agreements, training, and other management procedures in several respects. For more details, see here.

While the HITECH Act gave Covered Entities and business associates a year to complete the necessary arrangements to comply with these HITECH Act changes, many Covered Entities and business associates have remain unnecessarily exposed under these new requirements by not completing or otherwise failing to adequately implement the necessary arrangements despite expanding liability exposures that can result from noncompliance. To mitigate these exposures, Covered Entities and their business associates should act quickly to review and update their policies, procedures, training, business associate and other services agreements, and other practices and procedures, as well as to implement the training, oversight, and other management necessary to comply with the HITECH Act changes and to mitigate other HIPAA risks.

Exposures Significant & Growing

Covered Entities and business associates failing to devote adequate attention and resources to managing HIPAA compliance and associated risks risk increasing peril. Aside from the potential implications that disclosures of violations may have on patients and others impacting their business, the legal risks of noncompliance for Covered Entities, business associates and others mishandling protected health information are real and growing.

Timely action to comply with the amended HIPAA requirements and Breach Regulations is important both to preserve critical trust in the business, to avoid triggering breach notifications that can undermine this trust and fuel legal complaints, and to avoid exposure to an expanding range of sanctions that can result when a violation occurs.

Amendments made under the HITECH Act have expanded the size and availability of remedies that can be imposed for HIPAA violations as well as the parties empowered to pursue these remedies. Wrongful use, access or disclosure of protected health information in violation of HIPAA subjects participating health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates and other workforce members and others to civil penalties, criminal prosecution and, since February 17, 2009, civil lawsuits brought by state attorneys general on behalf of citizens of their states whose HIPAA rights were violated. Since September 23, 2009, health plans and other HIPAA Covered Entities as well as their business associates also became obligated to provide breach notification under new mandates imposed by the HITECH Act. Coupled with increased enforcement emphasis by regulators, these expansions to HIPAA’s remedy provisions increase the risk that Covered Entities or business associates violating HIPAA face investigation and sanction. Furthermore, the wrongful use, access or disclosure of protected health information or other confidential information also increasingly is the basis of civil or criminal actions brought under a variety of other federal and state laws.

Expanded HIPAA & Other Federal Prosecutions & Remedies

The expanded requirements imposed under the Breach Regulation and the other HITECH Act changes that took effect on February 17, 2010 follow the implementation changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, when President Obama signed the HITECH Act into law. The HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s remedies significantly increase the risk that health plans and other Covered Entities and their business associates will face civil lawsuits, civil or criminal penalties or other consequences for violating HIPAA. Noncompliance with these and other HIPAA requirements subjects Covered Entities and business associates to civil penalties, criminal prosecution, civil damage awards under lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, and other legal remedies. In addition, timely update written policies, procedures, business associate agreements, training and documentation is imperative in order for Covered Entities and their business associates to fulfill their breach notification obligations under new rules enacted as part of the HITECH Act.

HITECH Amendments Expand Liability Exposures

The expanded risks stem in part from the HITECH Act’s amendments to HIPAA’s remedy provisions. Among other things, the HITECH Act amended HIPAA to:

Allow a State Attorney General to sue health plans or other Covered Entities, business associates or both that harm state citizens by committing HIPAA violations after February 16, 2009;
Expand the mandate by OCR to investigate violations and audit compliance with HIPAA;
Require Office of Civil Rights to impose civil sanctions against Covered Entities and business associates involved in violations of HIPAA in accordance with tightened standards added to HIPAA by the HITECH Act;
Revise the criminal sanctions that the Department of Justice can seek against Covered Entities, their business associates and others for violations of HIPAA; and
Amend HIPAA to make clear that HIPAA’s criminal sanctions also can imposed on business associates, workforce members and other persons that improperly use, access and disclose protected health information in violation of HIPAA.

State Attorney General Lawsuit Exposures

Covered Entities and their business associates now also need to be concerned about the potential that a state Attorney General may bring civil suit to remedy damages caused to state citizens by a breach of HIPAA.

The HITECH Act empowers a state attorney general to sue Covered Entities or business associates engaging in HIPAA violations that harms citizens of the state for statutory damages equal to the sum of the number of violations multiplied by 100 up to a maximum of $25,000 per calendar year plus attorneys fees and costs

A HIPAA civil lawsuit filed on January 13, 2010 demonstrates the willingness of at least some states to exercise the new authority created by the HITECH Act on February 17, 2009 to sue Covered Entities and business associates that violate HIPAA for civil damages.

On January 13, 2010 Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. (Health Net) for failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving 446,000 Connecticut enrollees and promptly notify consumers endangered by the security breach. The suit also names UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Oxford Health Plans LLC, who have acquired Health Net. The first attorney general enforcement action brought based on amendments made to HIPAA under the HITECH Act, Connecticut charges that Health Net violated HIPAA by failing to safeguard protected medical records and financial information on almost a half million Health Net enrollees in Connecticut then allowing this information to remain exposed for at least six months before notifying authorities and consumers.

Stepped Up Federal Enforcement

Even before the HITECH Act amendments, however, OCR and Department of Justice already were stepping up HIPAA investigation and enforcement. The Department of Justice has obtained a variety of criminal convictions against violators of HIPAA. See, e.g., 2 New HIPAA Criminal Actions Highlight Risks From Wrongful Use/Access of Health Information. Meanwhile, OCR also is emphasizing HIPAA enforcement. In February, 2009, for instance, OCR announced that CVS Pharmacies, Inc. would pay $2.25 million to resolve HIPAA charges. This announcement followed OCR’s announcement in July, 2008 that Providence Health Care would pay $100,000 to resolve HIPAA violation charges. OCR also has taken HIPAA enforcement actions against a broad range of other Covered Entities to redress HIPAA violations or other compliance concerns. To review examples of these other actions, see here. While not resulting in the significant payments involved in CVS or Providence, all Covered Entities involved in these and other enforcement actions or investigations have incurred significant legal and other defense costs, loss of community trust, or both.

In addition to these HIPAA-specific exposures, wrongful use, access or disclosure of medical information also can give rise to liability for health plans and other Covered Entities, business associates, employees and other members of their workforce and others improperly using, accessing or disclosing protected health information. Federal and state prosecutions may and increasingly do criminally prosecute individuals for improperly accessing or using medical or other personal information under a variety of other federal or state laws . See e.g., Cybercrime & Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA; NY AG Cuomo Announcement of 1st Settlement For Violation of NY Security Breach Notification Law; Woman Who Revealed AIDs Info Gets A Year. Additionally, State courts also increasingly are permitting individuals harmed by HIPAA violations to use HIPAA as the foundation of state law duties used to maintain state negligence, invasion of privacy, retaliation or other claims for damages. Read more here.

State Civil Lawsuits

Meanwhile, disgruntled employees or other business partners also increasingly raise alleged HIPAA misconduct as a basis of their legal complaints. For instance, private plaintiffs employed by Covered Entities also are increasingly pointing to HIPAA as the basis for their retaliation or wrongful discharge claims. See, e.g., Retaliation For Filing HIPAA Complaint Recognized As Basis For State Retaliatory Discharge Claim. Coupled with the HITECH Act changes, these and other enforcement actions signal growing potential hazards for Covered Entities and their business associates that fail to properly manage their HIPAA compliance obligations and risks.

Given these and other developments, Covered Entities and their business associates generally should resist the temptation to underestimate their potential HIPAA exposure for a variety of reasons. In fact, a number of factors demonstrate that the risks are significant and growing for Covered Entities, business associates and others that breach HIPAA’s mandates or otherwise inappropriately access protected health information.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Urged To Act Promptly To Manage Expanded HIPAA Risks & Obligations

As a consequence of these collective HITECH Act changes and growing HIPAA-related and other exposures, Covered Entities, their business associates and business associates generally will find it necessary or advisable among other things to:

Conduct well-documented due diligence within the scope of attorney-client privilege on their own practices and procedures;
Review the adequacy of the practices, policies and procedures of the Covered Entities, business associates, and others that may come into contact with protected health information;;
Renegotiate their service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance obligations of each party relating to for auditing compliance, investigating potential breaches; providing required breach notifications; specify leadership and required cooperation in the event of a breach, charge, or other concern; indemnification and other liability allocations; and other related matters;
Update policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility;
Conduct well-documented training as necessary to ensure that business associates and other members of the Covered Entity’s workforce understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, can detect potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand and are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reported suspected violations; and
Pursue appropriate liability and other protection as appropriate to improve their ability to demonstrate both their commitment to compliance and their realistic efforts to ensure that these commitments are both appropriately documented on paper and operationalized in performance.

As part of these compliance and risk management efforts, most Covered Entities and their business associates will find it advisable to devote significant attention to the business associate relationship and its associated business associate agreements. Proper management of the expanded compliance obligations and liability exposures created by the HITECH Act generally will necessitate that Covered Entities and their business associates focus significant attention on the reworking of their operating and contractual relationships including the definition of detailed procedures for monitoring, reporting, investigating, and resolving potential breaches or other compliance concerns.

Even before the impending HIPAA changes scheduled to take effect on February 17, 2010, a strong need for more detailed contracting and planning of these relationships already existed. Since the enactment of HIPAA, the practice of many Covered Entities and their business associates of appending generic “business associate” representations onto existing services contracts without specific tailoring and planning has created undesirable ambiguities in these agreements. Further updating and tailoring of these and other provisions of services agreements has become even more important over the past year in light of the new breach notification mandates that took effect under the HITECH Act in September, 2009, changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, and the impending extension by the HITECH Act to business associates of direct liability for compliance with HIPAA scheduled to occur on February 17, 2010.

These and other stepped up oversight and enforcement activities make it critical that all Covered Entities and their business associates update their policies and practices, conduct training, tighten their compliance and data breach monitoring processes, strengthen their internal controls and documentation, and take other steps to prepare to defend their actions under the newly strengthened Privacy Rules. Covered Entities and their business associates more than ever must ensure their ability to demonstrate to federal regulators the effectiveness of their HIPAA compliance efforts by both adopting the written policies and procedures required by HIPAA and continuously monitoring and administering these safeguards. Covered Entities should consider reviewing the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance practices taking into consideration the Corrective Action Plan, published OCR noncompliance and enforcement statistics, their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

For Assistance With Compliance Or Other Concerns

If your organization need advice or assistance in reviewing, updating, administering or defending its HIPAA or other privacy policies, practices, business associate or other agreements, notices or other related activities, consider contacting the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail here.

Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, training and presentations, and publications on privacy and security of health and other sensitive information in health and managed care, employment, employee benefits, financial services, education and other contexts.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years experience advising clients about health and other privacy and security matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer is the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010, as well as the author of “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of other highly regarded publications. She has continuously advises employers, health care providers, health insurers and administrators, health plan sponsors, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, schools, financial services providers, governments and others about privacy and data security, health care, insurance, human resources, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters. Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Other Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in information about upcoming programs to be presented by Ms. Stamer, acquiring a copy of a recording or materials from previous programs she has presented, or arranging training for your organization. For more information about these opportunities, contact Ms. Stamer directly.

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your organization need advice or assistance in reviewing, updating, administering or defending its HIPAA or other privacy policies, practices, business associate or other agreements, notices or other related activities, consider contacting Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A widely published author and speaker on HIPAA and other employee benefit and human resources related matters, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising health plans, their employer and other sponsors, health insurers, TPAs and other business associates and others about HIPAA and other health plan and privacy matters. Currently serving as both Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative and Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience assisting employers, insurers, plan administrators and fiduciaries and others to design, implement, draft and administer health and other employee benefit plans and to defend audits, litigation or other disputes by private parties, the IRS, Department of Labor, Office of Civil Rights, Medicare, state insurance regulators and other federal and state regulators. A nationally recognized author and lecturer, Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Examples of other recent updates that may be of interest include:

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on Privacy Rule Changes & Posting of Breach Notices On OCR Website Signal New Enforcement Risks For Health Plans, Their Sponsors & Business Associates | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, GINA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Present “2010 Health Plan Checkup” At Annual DFW ISCEBS Employee Benefits Fundamentals Workshop

February 22, 2010

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss the latest changes and requirements affecting employer sponsored group health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and vendors during her presentation titled “2010 Health Plan Checkup” at the Dallas/Fort Worth ISCEBS Annual Fundamentals Workshop currently scheduled for May 13, 2010 in Dallas.

With Congress and federal regulators turning up the heat on health care, keeping up to date with the latest developments is both critical and increasingly challenging for employers, their employee benefits and human resources staff, and the fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others dealing with health plan design and administration. Coming as U.S. employers continue to struggle to provide health benefits in the face of skyrocketing health benefit costs, tighter health plan medical privacy, nondiscrimination, mental health and other benefit mandates, and a host of other tighter new federal regulations impacting employment-based health plans and their sponsoring businesses, fiduciaries and administrators increasingly are forcing U.S. business leaders to make appropriate health plan cost and compliance management a key management priority. Ms. Stamer will discuss key developments, highlight new developments on the horizon, and provide tips to participants for monitoring and responding to these and other developments. To register or for additional information, contact the Dallas/Fort Worth ISCEBS here.

Nationally recognized for her more than 22 years of work on managed care and other health and other employee benefits, human resources, insurance, and health care matters, Ms. Stamer assists employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend managed care and other medical benefit programs and practices. She also regularly advises and assists these and other clients to monitor and respond to evolving legislation, regulations, enforcement activities by federal and state regulators, evolving product and market changes, and private litigation and other disputes. Past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the Current Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these and other employee benefit and human resources matters. Some other recent updates on these topics recently published by Ms. Stamer include :

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, assistance investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance or risk management concern, or need legal representation on other matters please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Labor & Employment Practice Chair at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402; or your other preferred Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

Comments Off on Stamer To Present “2010 Health Plan Checkup” At Annual DFW ISCEBS Employee Benefits Fundamentals Workshop | ARRA, CHIP, COBRA, COBRA Subsidy, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Prescription Drugs, Stimulus Bill, Tax, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: COBRA, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Military Leave, Premium Subsidy, Privacy, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans & Business Associates Face 2/17 Deadline To Update Policies, Contracts & Procedures For HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes

February 15, 2010

Connecticut AG Lawsuit Highlights Expanding Civil Damage Exposure Risks Of Noncompliance

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

By Wednesday, February 17, 2010, employer and other health plans and health insurers (“covered entities”) and service providers performing functions on behalf of these entities (“business associates”) must begin complying with tighter federal requirements for the use, access, protection and disclosure of protected health information under Privacy & Security Standards of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). The changes scheduled to take effect February 17, 2010 are likely to require that health plans and their business associates update their written policies, operational procedures, privacy notices and business associate agreements in several respects.

While the HITECH Act gave covered entities and business associates a year to complete the necessary arrangements to comply with these impending HITECH Act changes, many health plans and business associates have not completed the necessary arrangements despite expanding liability exposures that can result from noncompliance. To mitigate these exposures, covered entities and their business associates should act quickly both to update their services agreements, plans and policies, practices, and procedures, and to implement the training, oversight, and other management procedures necessary to comply with the HITECH Act changes and to mitigate other HIPAA risks.

2/17/10 Deadline To Comply With HITECH Act HIPAA Amendments

On February 17, 2010, health plans and other covered entities and their business associates will become subject to the latest to take effect in a series of amendments to the HIPAA enacted under the HITEC Act. The new rules are part of a broader series of changes to HIPAA made by the HITECH Act that collectively both significantly expand the obligations of covered entities and their business associates to regarding the use, protection and disclosure of protected health information and the liability exposures that can result when covered entities or business associates violate these requirements.

The changes scheduled to take effect February 17, 2010 are likely to require that health plans and their business associates update their written policies, operational procedures, privacy notices and business associate agreements in several respects. For instance, effective February 17, 2010, the HITECH Act generally requires that covered entities and their business associates revise their written privacy policies, privacy notices and operating procedures:

To meet expanded requirements to honor individual’s requests for special restrictions on uses and disclosures of protected health information to health plans for payment purposes
To restrict protected health information disclosures to the minimum necessary required to accomplish otherwise allowable purpose;
To comply with new rules that require that the covered entity and its business associates treat any use, access or disclosure of any protected health information made for purposes of making communications about products or services as made for marketing, rather than operational, purposes which are prohibited by HIPAA except where HIPAA’s requirements are met;
To comply with new restrictions on certain fundraising communications made for operational purposes including expanded obligations to allow recipients to opt out of further fundraising communications;
To prohibit covered entities or business associates from selling protected health information without meeting the amended requirements of HIPAA that a valid HIPAA authorization from the subject of the information and specific reassurances from the purchaser concerning its subsequent use of the protected health information except as otherwise permitted by HIPAA;
To take into account these tightened restrictions on the use, access or disclosure of protected health information for purposes of complying with new HITECH Act breach notification requirements that took effect in September, 2009, which apply when a covered entity or its business associate knows or should know a breach of “unsecured protected health information” has occurred and for purposes of making the necessary changes in written policies and business associate agreements, training and operational procedures necessary to comply with these rules;
To directly require business associates comply with HIPAA’s requirements in the same manner as other covered entities and make it necessary or advisable that that service provider agreements between health plans and business associates be updated to reflect these and other changes to HIPAA; and
To implement the necessary written policy changes, notification updates, business associate agreement amendments, training, management oversight and other procedural changes necessary to demonstrate fulfillment with these requirements.

Noncompliance with these and other HIPAA requirements subjects covered entities and business associates to civil penalties, criminal prosecution, civil damage awards under lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, and other legal remedies. In addition, timely update written policies, procedures, business associate agreements, training and documentation is imperative in order for covered entities and their business associates to fulfill their breach notification obligations under new rules enacted as part of the HITECH Act.

Under the HITECH Act, health plans and other covered entities and their business associates have been obligated since September 23, 2009 to notify individuals who are the subject of protected health information, the Department of Health & Human Services and in some cases the media if and when a breach of “unsecured protected health information occurs. Failing to timely update written policies, procedures and training increases the likelihood that health plans, other covered entities or business associates will be obligated to provide breach notifications under these new rules, in addition to their otherwise applicable exposures under HIPAA.

HIPAA Enforcement & Liability Exposures Real and Rising

Health plans and other covered entities, their business associates and others involved in health plan design and operations generally should resist the temptation to underestimate their potential HIPAA exposure based on the limited enforcement of HIPAA by the Office of Civil Rights between 2003 and 2009 for a variety of reasons.

First, the changes taking effect on February 17, 2010 follow the implementation changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, when President Obama signed the HITECH Act into law and the new breach notification requirements added by the HITECH Act that took effect on September 23, 2009. The HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s remedies significantly increase the risk that health plans and other covered entities and their business associates will face civil lawsuits, civil or criminal penalties or other consequences for violating HIPAA.

The expanded risks stem in part from the HITECH Act’s amendments to HIPAA’s remedy provisions. Among other things, the HITECH Act amended HIPAA to:

Allow a State Attorney General to sue health plans or other covered entities, business associates or both that harm state citizens by committing HIPAA violations after February 16, 2009;
Expand the mandate by the Office of Civil Rights to investigate violations and audit compliance with HIPAA;
Require Office of Civil Rights to impose civil sanctions against health plans and other covered entities and their business associates involved in violations of HIPAA in accordance with tightened standards added to HIPAA by the HITECH Act;
Revise the criminal sanctions that the Department of Justice can seek against health plans and other covered entities, their business associates and others for violations of HIPAA;
Amend HIPAA to make clear that HIPAA’s criminal sanctions also can imposed on business associates, workforce members and other persons that improperly use, access and disclose protected health information in violation of HIPAA.

A HIPAA civil lawsuit filed on January 13, 2010 demonstrates the willingness of at least some states to exercise the new authority created by the HITECH Act on February 17, 2009 to sue covered entities and business associates that violate HIPAA for civil damages.

The HITECH Act empowers a state attorney general to sue covered entities or business associates engaging in HIPAA violations that harms citizens of the state for statutory damages equal to the sum of the number of violations multiplied by 100 up to a maximum of $25,000 per calendar year plus attorneys fees and costs

Even before the HITECH Act amendments, however, the Office of Civil Rights and Department of Justice already were stepping up HIPAA investigation and enforcement. The Department of Justice has obtained a variety of criminal convictions against violators of HIPAA. See, e.g., 2 New HIPAA Criminal Actions Highlight Risks From Wrongful Use/Access of Health Information. Meanwhile, the Office of Civil Rights in February, 2009 announced that CVS Pharmacies, Inc. would pay $2.25 million to resolve HIPAA charges. This announcement followed the Office of Civil Rights announcement in July, 2008 that Providence Health Care would pay $100,000 to resolve HIPAA violation charges. While not resulting in the significant payments involved in CVS or Providence, the Office of Civil Rights also taken HIPAA enforcement actions against a broad range of other covered entities to redress HIPAA violations or other compliance concerns. To review examples of these other actions, see here.

Along side these governmental actions, state courts also increasingly are willing to allow individual plaintiffs to rely on violations of HIPAA as the basis for bringing state privacy, retaliation or other actions. While prior to the recent HITECH Act amendments, federal courts had ruled that private plaintiffs could not sue under HIPAA for damages they incurred from a covered entity’s violation of HIPAA, state courts have allowed private plaintiff’s to use the obligations imposed by HIPAA as the basis of a covered entity’s duty for purposes of certain state law lawsuits. In Sorensen v. Barbuto, 143 P.3d 295 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), for example, a Utah appeals court ruled a private plaintiff could use HIPAA standards to establish that a physician owed a duty of confidentiality to his patients for purposes of maintaining a state law damages claim. Similarly, the Court in Acosta v. Byrum, 638 S.E. 2d 246 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) ruled that a plaintiff could use HIPAA to establish the “standard of care” in a negligence lawsuit. Meanwhile, private plaintiffs employed by covered entities also are increasingly pointing to HIPAA as the basis for their retaliation claims. See, e.g., Retaliation For Filing HIPAA Complaint Recognized As Basis For State Retaliatory Discharge Claim. Coupled with the HITECH Act changes, these and other enforcement actions signal growing potential hazards for covered entities and their business associates that fail to properly manage their HIPAA compliance obligations and risks.

Health Plans & Business Associates Should Take Timely Action To Comply & Manage Risks

As a consequence of these collective HITECH Act changes and growing HIPAA-related exposures, both health plans and business associates generally will find it necessary or advisable among other things to:

Conduct well-documented due diligence on each other’s practices and procedures to improve their ability to demonstrate both their commitment to compliance and their realistic efforts to ensure that these commitments are operationalized in performance;
Renegotiate their service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance obligations of each party relating to for auditing compliance, investigating potential breaches; providing required breach notifications; specify leadership and required cooperation in the event of a breach, charge, or other concern; indemnification and other liability allocations; and other related matters; and
Pursue appropriate liability and other protection as appropriate.

As part of these compliance and risk management efforts, most covered entities and their business associates will find it advisable to devote significant attention to the business associate relationship and its associated business associate agreements.

Proper management of the expanded compliance obligations and liability exposures created by the HITECH Act generally will necessitate that health plans and other covered entities and their business associates focus significant attention on the reworking of their operating and contractual relationships.

Further updating and tailoring of these and other provisions of services agreements has become even more important over the past year in light of the new breach notification mandates that took effect under the HITECH Act in September, 2009, changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions that took effect on February 17, 2009, and the impending extension by the HITECH Act to business associates of direct liability for compliance with HIPAA scheduled to occur on February 17, 2010.

Given these changes and the associated obligations and risks, both health plans and other covered entities and their business associates generally should act quickly to manage their own compliance and to minimize exposures that may result from the other’s compliance deficiencies. As part of these efforts, both covered entities and their business associates generally should review and tighten business associate and other service agreement provisions to provide for more specific and comprehensive HIPAA-related contractual assurances, as well as improved cooperation, coordination, management and oversight.

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Can Help

If your organization need advice or assistance in reviewing, updating, administering or defending its HIPAA or other privacy policies, practices, business associate or other agreements, notices or other related activities, consider contacting Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A widely published author and speaker on HIPAA and other related matter, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising health plans, their employer and other sponsors, health insurers, TPAs and other business associates and others about HIPAA and other health plan and privacy matters. Currently serving as both Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council representative and Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience assisting employers, insurers, plan administrators and fiduciaries and others to design, implement, draft and administer health and other employee benefit plans and to defend audits, litigation or other disputes by private parties, the IRS, Department of Labor, Office of Civil Rights, Medicare, state insurance regulators and other federal and state regulators. As part of this work, she regularly assists clients to review and update policies, practices, contracts, notices and procedures to comply with HIPAA and other requirements. A nationally recognized author and lecturer, Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on Health Plans & Business Associates Face 2/17 Deadline To Update Policies, Contracts & Procedures For HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes | ARRA, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Risk Management, Stimulus Bill | Tagged: Breach Notice, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, GINA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, PHI, Privacy, Privacy Rule, Risk Management, Security Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Inapplicability of HIPAA Privacy To Disability Insurer Not License To Impose Unreasonable Claims Requirements

February 8, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

While finding the Privacy Standards imposed by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) inapplicable to disability insurers, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeals nevertheless ruled that the insurer was not entitled to dismissal of the lawsuit challenging the denial of disability benefits brought by a state employee for failure to meet proof of loss requirements based on his failure to sign insurer required medical authorization. Disability insurers and plan fiduciaries should heed the decision as a reminder that exemption from HIPAA does not amount to a license to impose unreasonable proof of loss or requirements inconsistent with a reasonable reading of the terms of the applicable plan or policy, or other applicable regulations.

Harris v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 415262, 2009-0034 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/5/10), involved a lawsuit challenging the continuing refusal of Metropolitan Life Insurance to and its designates to approve the disability benefit claim of Louisiana Supreme Court employee Jack Harris. Metropolitan repeatedly asked insisted that Mr. Harris submit to a physical examination and sign various medical and other authorizations including an “Attending Physician’s Statement” and an “Employee Authorization,” and sign certain other documents. While Mr. Harris sent the “Attending Physician’s Statement” to his treating physician, he declined to sign the Employee Authorization and certain other subsequently requested consents on the grounds of HIPAA. While he provided to a HIPAA-compliant authorizations to his medical providers to release all medical records, medical opinions, and medical reports relating to Mr. Harris’ past and current treatment for purposes of the claim, he declined and instead filed suit contending that the information and releases already provided met the proof of loss requirements of the policy.

Upon motion of Metropolitan, the trial court found that Mr. Harris’ failure to sign the authorizations and submit to the medical examination required by Metropolitan rendered his claim “premature.” Upon appeal, however, the Court of Appeals overruled this determination. While the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the special authorization rules imposed by HIPAA did not apply to a disability insurer such as Metropolitan, it also ruled that its right to require a claimant to sign authorizations, submit to medical examinations or meet other proof of loss conditions must be reasonable in light of the terms of the policy. Accordingly, although the Court of Appeals agreed that the proof of loss and other provisions of the disability policy authorized Metropolitan to require a disability claimant to undergo an independent medical examination “as often as reasonably required,” the Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Harris’ submission to the independent medical examination was not a condition precedent to the initiation of litigation by an insured and that the “medical authorization” demanded by Metropolitan was far broader than what the policy allowed as reasonably required for the independent medical examination. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals overruled the trial court’s dismissal of the disability claim and remanded the action to the trial court for hearing.

While affirming that the HIPAA Privacy Standards don’t directly apply to disability insurers, the Harris decision also demonstrates that disability insurers should not over-estimate the effect of this exemption. While HIPAA may not apply, disability insurers generally remain bound by the reasonable construction of their policy terms, taking into account otherwise applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, disability and other HIPAA-exempt insurers and plans should not confuse the inapplicability of the HIPAA authorization requirements for carte blanche to impose unreasonable authorization or other proof of loss requirements inconsistent with their policy terms.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to this invitation or other employee benefit, employment, compensation, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, and a Council Member on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Ms. Stamer has more than 22 years experience advising and assisting employers, employee benefit plan and their fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, and others about policy and plan, process, and product design, administration, documentation, risk management and defense under ERISA, COBRA, HIPAA, labor and employment, tax, state banking and insurance, and other laws. Her work includes extensive experience advising and defending employee benefit plan fiduciaries and insurers about the investigation of disability, health and other claims and appeals. She also advises, assists, trains, audits and defends employers and others regarding the federal and state Sentencing Guideline and other compliance, equal employment opportunity, privacy, leave, compensation, workplace safety, wage and hour, workforce reengineering, and other labor and employment and defends related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, writes and conducts training extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on Inapplicability of HIPAA Privacy To Disability Insurer Not License To Impose Unreasonable Claims Requirements | Disability Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Retirement Plans | Tagged: Authorizations, Claims Procedures, Disability Insurance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Privacy Standards | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Mental Health Parity Regulations Require Health Plan Review & Updates

January 31, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer and union-sponsored group health plans and insurers generally must update their group health plans to comply with expanded federal “mental health parity” regulations (MHP Regulations) published on Friday, January 29, 2010 will require changes to most covered group health plans to comply with the new rules and to make adjustments to broader benefit provisions as appropriate to mitigate potential cost implications no later than the first plan year beginning after June 30, 2010.

Jointly published by the Treasury, Health & Human Services and Labor Departments and available for review here , the MHP Regulations interpret and implement federal rules prohibiting group health plans and their insurers from imposing certain special limits on benefits provided for mental health and substance abuse treatments not applicable to general medical or surgical benefits.

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008, Public Law 110-343 (MHPAEA) expands the scope of prohibited restrictions on mental health benefits beginning after June 30, 2010. Under the MHPAEA amendments, any covered group health plan that includes mental health and substance use disorder benefits along with standard medical and surgical benefits generally cannot apply more limited benefit limits, out-of-pocket cost limitations, prior authorization and utilization review or other benefit restrictions than apply to medical or surgical benefits. In addition, group health plan utilization review, medical necessity and appropriateness and other rules and procedures used to decide mental health and substance abuse benefits generally must be based on the same level of scientific evidence used by the group health plan or insurer to determine medical and surgical benefits.

Before the MHPAEA amendments took effect, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) generally only prohibited group health plans from applying more restrictive aggregate lifetime and annual dollar limits on mental health benefits than applied to general medical or surgical benefits and did not extend these restrictions to substance use disorder benefits.

The MHP Regulations generally apply to group health plans of employers with 50 or more workers that offer mental health or substance use disorder benefits for plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2010. Until then, covered group health plans and their insurers generally must continue to comply with the more limited mental health parity requirements imposed under the MHPA, as well as other federal group health plan mandates.

Federal law increasingly is curtailing the significant latitude that employers and unions once enjoyed in deciding the benefits, eligibility and other terms and conditions of their group health plans, including many significant changes that took effect or will take effect during 2009 and 2010. You can learn more about some of these developments by reviewing the 2009 Health Plan Update presentation posted here. In light of the liabilities and costs arising under these and other rules, plan sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries and executives with responsibility over these plans, their establishment, funding or administration should take prompt and prudent steps to verify that their plan documents, communications, agreements and practices are updated to minimize risks and avoid unanticipated expense.

If your organization needs assistance with monitoring, assessing, managing or defending these or other health or other employee benefit, labor and employment, or compensation practices, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney of your choice. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a nationally recognized author and speaker, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with health and other employee benefit, labor and employment laws, safety, compensation, insurance, and other laws. She also advises and defends employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, employee benefit plans and others about litigation and other disputes relating to these matters, as well as charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. She has counseled and represented employers on these and other workforce matters for more than 22 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on New Mental Health Parity Regulations Require Health Plan Review & Updates | Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Mental Health | Tagged: Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, Employee Benefits, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Risk Management, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans & Employers Can Expect Pressure To Pay For Childhood Obesity Counseling From New American Academy of Pediatrics Report

January 25, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations calling for early intervention and intensive behavioral therapy to treat childhood obesity promise to increase demands for employer sponsored and other health plans to reimburse the costs of these treatments.

With health care providers and government officials increasingly emphasizing the need for prevention and intervention, employers and health insurers face greater pressure to offer health benefit coverage for weight management and other obesity prevention and treatment. Aside from determining what treatments to coverage generally, recent changes in the Americans With Disabilities Act statute and its enforcement and interpretation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the recently effective employment and health plan nondiscrimination rules of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act, health information and other privacy rules and other legal changes make the appropriate design and administration of obesity and other wellness, disease management and other programs targeting obesity or other chronic conditions legally and operationally challenging. Employers and insurers concerned with these issues should exercise care to properly understand and appropriately manage the legal and operational complexities, risks, costs and benefits when designing health and other programs to manage health care, disability and other costs of obesity and other chronic diseases.

Read the report and about discrimination and other issues that employers and insurers may need to manage under evolving federal rules when deciding how to design and manage obesity and other wellness and disease management programs here.

If you have questions about wellness, disease management or other health and wellness benefit, disability prevention and management, or other employee benefit, employment, compensation, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Member, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Group and RPTE Welfare Benefits Committee and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is experienced advising and assisting government leaders, employers, health and other employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries, insurers, financial advisory services, and administrators, health care providers, and others about obesity and other disease management and wellness programs, as well as other related employee benefit and employment matters. A widely published author on these and other health and disability benefit and management concerns, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers, health plans and others on these and other matters for more than 20 years. Author of the Personal Health Care Toolkit, Ms. Stamer also has lead the development of wellness and disease management initiatives for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas and other organizations. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see here or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on Health Plans & Employers Can Expect Pressure To Pay For Childhood Obesity Counseling From New American Academy of Pediatrics Report | Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Investigations, Leave, Mental Health, Rehabilitation Act, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Tagged: ADA, Disability, Disease Management, EEOC, GINA, Health Care, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Obesity, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Labor Department Rule Allows Employers 7 Days To Deliver Employee Contributions To Employee Benefit Plans

January 14, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Regulations published by the Department of Labor today (January 14, 2010) offer employers the opportunity to know their deposit of employee contributions and other amounts withheld from wages or otherwise received from employees with a pension, profit-sharing, health, or other welfare benefit plan is timely for purposes of the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the prohibited transaction rules of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) by depositing those amounts with the plan within the seven day period specified in a new safe harbor included in the Regulations.

Certainty about the timeliness of these deposits is important, as mishandling of these employee contributions, participant loan repayments or other employee benefit plan assets frequently triggers judgments, fines and penalties against companies that sponsor employee benefit plans as well as owners, board members, or other members of management. See Mishandling Employee Benefit Obligations Creates Big Liabilities For Distressed Businesses & Their Leaders. Consequently, businesses sponsoring employee benefit programs and owners, officers, directors or other members of management with authority over or responsibility for the handling or application of amounts withheld or collected from employees as employee contributions or plan loans should make arrangements for these amounts to be properly handled and timely deposited with the appropriate employee benefit plan in accordance with these new plan asset regulations.

Title I of ERISA generally requires that employee benefit “plan assets” be held in trust, prudently handled and invested, used for the exclusive benefit of the plan and its participants, and otherwise used and administered in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. Meanwhile, the use of “plan assets” of certain employee benefit plans in a manner prohibited by the Code’s prohibited transaction rules also may trigger excise taxes and other penalties.

For purposes of both ERISA and the Code, Labor Department Regulation § 2510.3-102, specifies that amounts (other than union dues) that an employer withholds from wages or otherwise collects from employees as employee contributions or loan repayments to an employee benefit plan generally become plan assets subject to these fiduciary responsibility rules “as of the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets.” Since employers, business owners, members of management can risk exposure to damages, administrative penalties and/or excise taxes, knowing when amounts collected from employees are considered plan assets is a critical first step to managing these risks.

Unfortunately, the subjectivity of this standard leaves room for much uncertainty and debate about the precise deadline by which employee contributions, plan loans and other amounts from employees must be received by the plan. The subjectivity inherent in this standard leaves many employers uncertain about the adequacy of their compliance efforts and frequently fuels debate among plans, debtors, creditors, regulators or others about the when amounts earmarked to be withheld from employee wages cease to be assets of the debtor employer and become plan assets.

To mitigate debate and uncertainty about the timing of these events, Labor Department Regulation § 2510.3-102 as published in final form today includes a new “safe harbor” rule for plans with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year. Under the safe harbor, employee contributions, plan loans and other amounts withheld from wages or received from employees for payment to an employee benefit plan are treated as treated timely paid to the plan if deposited with the plan not later than the 7th business day following the day on which such amount is received by the employer (in the case of amounts that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer), or the 7th business day following the day on which such amount would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash (in the case of amounts withheld by an employer from a participant’s wages). While this safe harbor assures employers and others that withhold from wages or receive employee contributions or participant loan payments owing to less than 100 participant plans that their deposit will be considered timely if received by the plan within seven days, the plan asset regulations leave open that deposit with the plan more than 7 after receipt might still be considered timely deposit with the plan under certain circumstance.

Where deposit with the plan is not made within the seven-day period established by the safe harbor, the plan asset rules continue to leave room for great subjectivity in the determination of the deadline for deposit. In addition to the seven-day safe harbor, the plan asset regulations clearly establish bright-line deadlines after which the deposit of employee contribution or plan loan amounts always will be considered untimely. Thus, the plan asset rules provide that the deadline for depositing employee contributions and plan loans with the plan in no event ever extends beyond the applicable of the following dates (the “Latest Date”)

For pension plans, the 15th business day of the month following the month in which the employee contribution or participant loan repayment amounts are withheld or received by the employer;
With respect to a SIMPLE plan that involves SIMPLE IRAs the 30th calendar day following the month in which the participant contribution amounts would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash; and
For health and other welfare benefit plans, 90 days from the date on which the employee contribution is withheld or received by the employer.

In all other instances, the plan asset regulations leave open to uncertainty and debate when and if an employer’s deposit of employee contributions and plan loans more than seven-days after payroll deduction or receipt but before the Latest Date will qualify as timely for purposes of ERISA Title I or the Code’s prohibited transaction provisions.

Companies and owners, officers and directors of businesses that harm plans by failing to ensure that these amounts are timely deposited into an employee benefit plan or otherwise are involved in the mishandling of these funds frequently become subject to prosecution, damage awards, civil penalties and excise taxes. To mitigate potential exposure to these risks, businesses and leaders of businesses that withhold from wages or collect employee contributions or plan loan payments from employees should make arrangements to ensure that these amounts timely are deposited with the appropriate plans and otherwise handled appropriately in accordance with ERISA and the Code.

If your business or employee benefit plan needs assistance evaluating or responding to these or other employee benefit, or other employment, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance or other concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, a representative to the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. She is experienced with assisting employers, insurers, administrators, and others to design and administer group health plans cost-effectively in accordance with these and other applicable federal regulations as well as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employee benefit, labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on New Labor Department Rule Allows Employers 7 Days To Deliver Employee Contributions To Employee Benefit Plans | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Employee Benefits, employee contributions, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreements, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Labor, Minimum Wage, pension plans, plan loans, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, welfare plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks To CPAs About “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” January 12, 2010

December 28, 2009

Accountants and their clients face increasing regulatory and business pressures to protect the sensitive business and personal information collected and maintained in the course of their operation to minimize their exposure to personal identity theft and other cybercrime scams by employees, business partners and others. Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak about “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” to members of the Dallas CPA Society on January 12, 2010 beginning at 2:00 p.m.

Part of the Dallas CPA Society Member Appreciation CPE Series Meeting, Ms. Stamer’s presentation will be part of four hours of free CPE training to be provided at a program open to members only at the Hilton Lincoln Centre Hotel located at 5410 LBJ Freeway, Dallas TX 75240 from 1 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. Central Time. (Parking at the facility costs $5.00). To register or for additional information, see here.

If you need help responding to these developments or other legislative, regulatory or enforcement concerns, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP can help. Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP and its attorneys have significant experience assisting businesses and business leaders to manage and defend privacy, data security, tax employee benefit, employment, health care, environmental, safety, securities and other compliance and risk management concerns.

Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 22 years experience helping businesses to use the law, process and technology to manage people and processes, and to manage technology, privacy and data security, employment and other legal and operational risks affecting their businesses. Author of “Privacy & Securities Standards-A Brief Nutshell,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” and “E-Health Business and Transactional Law Other Liability-Tort and Regulatory;” published by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., and many other publications, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising a accounting firms, law firms, banks and financial services organizations, insurers, consultants, health plans, health care providers and others about HIPAA, FACTA, and other privacy, trade secret and other information security and data breach risk management and compliance concerns. Ms Stamer also speaks, publishes and provides public policy input extensively on data security, technology and other internal controls and risk management matters. Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, and Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Ms. Stamer also is Board Certified in Labor & Employment law. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

You can review other recent human resources, employee benefits and internal controls publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here /the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to Cstamer@CTTLegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to here.

Comments Off on Stamer Speaks To CPAs About “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” January 12, 2010 | Corporate Compliance, Data Security, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Malpractice, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Risk Management | Tagged: Acountant's Liability, Corporate Compliance, CPA, CPE, Employee Benefits, Employer, GINA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3 Articles On Employee Benefit Risk Management Published In ABA RPTE E-Report

December 23, 2009

Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer the author of three articles in the December 2009 Issue of the American Bar Association Real Property Probate & Trust Section E-Report:

Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Compensation Committee, an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council member, and Chair of the Curran Tomko Tarski Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Practice, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her work assisting businesses, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors, insurers, administrative services providers, governments, and other entities to develop administer and defend cost-effective employee benefit other human resources programs, policies and procedures to meet their budgetary, risk management and compliance and other objectives. Board certified in Labor & Employment law, Ms. Stamer applies her extensive experience regarding employment, employee benefit, and other related laws to assists clients in a wide range of business and litigation contexts. The co-founder of the Solutions Law Consortium, Ms. Stamer, also is the publisher of Solutions Law HR & Benefits Update. She speaks and writes extensively about employee benefits and other human resources, compensation and internal controls matters.

If your organization or employee benefit plan needs assistance with employee benefits, labor and employment or other internal controls and risk management matters, please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402; or another Curran Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney of your choice. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi, LLP team, see here.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information to cstamer@cttlegal.com or registering to participate in the distribution of these and other updates on our CTT HR & Employee Benefits Update distributions in blog form via RSS feed here. You also may be interested in staying abreast of emerging internal controls and compliance challenges by reviewing and registering for our Corporate Compliance, Risk Management & Internal Controls distributions. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@cttlegal.com.

If you have questions about or need assistance evaluating, commenting on or responding to the Proposed Regulations, the Q&As, or other employment, compensation, employee benefit, workplace health and safety, corporate ethics and compliance practices, concerns or claims, please contact the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation and employee benefit, workplace safety, and other labor and employment, as well as advising and defending employers and others against tax, employment discrimination and other labor and employment, and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer has advised and represented employers on these and other labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 20 years. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly. For additional information about the experience and services of Ms. Stamer and other members of the Curran Tomko Tarksi LLP team, see here.

Other Information & Resources

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to participate in the distribution of our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update distributions here. Some other recent updates that may be of interested include the following, which you can access by clicking on the article title:

IRS Proposes To Update Regulations On Exclusion of Damages Received on Account of Personal Physical Injuries or Physical Sickness To Eliminate Tort Test
OSHA Final Rule Updates OSHA Personal Protective Equipment Standards
DOL Proposes Changes To H-2A Temporary & Seasonal Agricultural Nonimmigrant Worker Certification Procedures & Related Rules
Register Now For HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update: Learn What You Must Do This Month To Comply With New Health Data Breach Regulations
ADAAA Amendment Broader ADA “Disability” Definition Not Retroactive, Employer Action Needed To Manage Post 1/1/2009 Risks
New Study Shares Data On Migrant Health Care Challenges Along The Border
Employer & Other Health Plans & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 23
Stamer, Others To Discuss Technology Use/Risks in Employee Benefits, Tax & HR Consulting & Administration
Businesses Cautioned To Strengthen Investigation & Employment Practices To Minimize Potential Exposure To Retaliation Claims In Light Of Recent Supreme Court Retaliation Decision
OFCCP To Apply Special Procedures, Heightened Scrutiny To Equal Employment Practices of Government Contractors, Subcontractors On ARRA Funded Projects
With September 8 Deadline For Government Contractors To Use E-Verify, USCIS Invites Comments On E-Verify Program Designated Agent Processr Enforcement

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Comments Off on 3 Articles On Employee Benefit Risk Management Published In ABA RPTE E-Report | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans, Risk Management | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Sues Wendy’s Franchisee For Disability Discrimination

Comment Deadline 1/31 On HHS Plan To Let States Define ACA “Essential Benefits” That Concerns Many

Group Health Plans & Insurer To Get More Time To Meet Affordable Care Act Summary of Benefits and Coverage Requirements

CMS Final Medicare Rule Imposes Many Conditions On Access To Medicare Claims Data To Evaluate Providers & Suppliers

EBSA Releases Collection of New M-1 and Other Guidance Impacting Multiple Employer Welfare Plans

Incentives To Get Employee Into Wellness Education Requires Legal Risk Management

HHS Chides Insurer For “Excessive” Premium Increases After Affordable Care Act Rate Audit

EBSA Plans To Include Health Care Reform Compliance In Health Plan Audits Beginning In FY 2012; Disputes OIG Criticism Of ACA Enforcement Efforts

EBSA Plans To Include Health Care Reform Compliance In Health Plan Audits Beginning In FY 2012; Disputes OIG Criticism Of ACA Enforcement Efforts

ONC Hires APP Design, Inc. To Run Patient E-Consent Trial Project

HHS Projects Medicare Advantage Enrollment Will Rise As Premiums Decline In 2012; Plans Face Increased Regulation & Enforcement

HHS Credits Health Reform For Getting Health Coverage For Added 1 Million Young Adults

4th Circuit Rejects Two Challenges To Affordable Care Act Constitutionality

Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do

New Affordable Care Act Guidance Helps Some Health Plans Stay Grandfathered

Stamer Speaks 9/14 On Coping With Health Care Reform: What’s New, What Lies Ahead & What To Do

Labor Department 2011 Stats Show Employer Health Coverage & Other Benefit Statistics

IRS Releases Health Savings Account, High Deductible Health Plan 2012 Indexed Amounts

New Affordable Care Act Guidance Helps Some Health Plans Stay Grandfathered

Health Plans, Insurers Get Limited & Imperfect Relief From Grace Period Extension For Some New Affordable Care Act Health Claims & Appeals Rules

Affordable Care Act’s Health Plan External & Internal Review Safe Harbor & Other Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

New Affordable Care Act Health Plan Appeals Regulations Require Health Plan Updates

Stamer Speaks June 9 On “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” In Houston

Stamer To Discuss “Health Care Reform’s Implications For Employers, Health Plans & Employee Benefits Practitioners” At May 5 Dallas Bar Association Meeting

Privacy Rule Changes & Posting of Breach Notices On OCR Website Signal New Enforcement Risks For Health Plans, Their Sponsors & Business Associates

Stamer To Present “2010 Health Plan Checkup” At Annual DFW ISCEBS Employee Benefits Fundamentals Workshop

Health Plans & Business Associates Face 2/17 Deadline To Update Policies, Contracts & Procedures For HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes

Inapplicability of HIPAA Privacy To Disability Insurer Not License To Impose Unreasonable Claims Requirements

New Mental Health Parity Regulations Require Health Plan Review & Updates

Health Plans & Employers Can Expect Pressure To Pay For Childhood Obesity Counseling From New American Academy of Pediatrics Report

New Labor Department Rule Allows Employers 7 Days To Deliver Employee Contributions To Employee Benefit Plans

Stamer Speaks To CPAs About “Privacy & Information Security: Managing Your Accounting Practice’s Liabilities & Counseling Your Clients” January 12, 2010

3 Articles On Employee Benefit Risk Management Published In ABA RPTE E-Report

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update