In a year already marked by overwhelming legislative and regulatory change, group health plans now must address yet another issue – abortion coverage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. The Court overruled Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion and leaving states free to regulate the procedure – and health plan sponsors wondering what to do next.
Over the past two months, the United States Court of Appeals for both the Ninth Circuit and the Third Circuit have upheld “anti-assignment” clauses in ERISA-governed health plan documents. These holdings – which adopt the same position previously taken by the First, Second, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits – are a blow to healthcare providers that attempt to bring suits against employer-sponsored health plans (or the insurance companies funding benefits under those plans) as “assignees” of individual plan participants.
When the Department of Labor (“DOL”) delayed by 90 days the date by which ERISA plans were required to comply with a set of disability claims and appeals regulations issued in the waning days of the Obama Administration, we predicted that a further delay – or even a complete withdrawal – of the regulations could be in the works. As it turns out, we were wrong. Instead, the DOL announced in early January that the regulations will become fully applicable on April 1st – and without change.
The Department of Labor has proposed a 90-day delay in the applicability of disability claims and appeals regulations that were finalized in the waning days of the Obama Administration. Rather than applying to claims filed on or after January 1, 2018, the regulations would now apply to claims filed on or after April 1, 2018. Moreover, it seems likely that a further delay – or even a complete withdrawal – of the regulations could be in the works.
The Supreme Court has handed down its latest in a long line of decisions on enforcing the reimbursement provisions of self-funded ERISA welfare plans. As evidenced by the Court’s lopsided 8-1 decision, the result in Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan will not surprise those familiar with the law in this area. But as indicated by Justice Ginsburg’s indignant dissent, plan sponsors may find the decision downright bizarre. After all, it tells participants who double-recover for medical benefits paid by their employer’s health plan that they’re off the hook – if they spend the money fast enough.
The United States Supreme Court gave considerable comfort to defined contribution plan participants – and their lawyers – who sue plan fiduciaries for failing to keep track of plan investment options. In a unanimous decision handed down on May 18, 2015, the Court held in Tibble v. Edison International that ERISA fiduciaries have a “continuing duty” to monitor investment options, and that plan participants have six years from the date of an alleged violation of that duty to file a lawsuit against the plan’s fiduciaries. This ruling significantly undercuts the utility of a statute of limitations defense that had been successfully deployed by plan fiduciaries in previous cases, and creates fertile ground for more litigation.