Skip to content

Insurance

Judge's gavel on table in office

On February 20, 2025, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) announced that its legal counsel submitted a letter to the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury, requesting a stay of enforcement of the September 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) Final Rule. In the letter, ERIC urged the Departments to exercise their authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 to postpone the effective date of the Final Rule while litigation challenging its validity is ongoing. This request marks a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding mental health parity laws and could have far-reaching implications for employers, health plans, and other stakeholders in the health insurance industry.

Judge's gavel on table in office

On January 17, 2025, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) Final Rule oversteps legal bounds, breaches the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), improperly delegates the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury’s (Departments) executive power to private entities, and violates the Due Process Clause. ERIC argues that under the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the plan was not obligated to assess any disparate impact that a term, applicable to both medical/surgical (M/S) and mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits, might have had on access to MH/SUD benefits. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) similarly maintained the disparate treatment standard of liability, rather than the disparate impact standard. Moreover, the Departments acknowledged in the 2013 regulations that “disparate results alone” did not constitute a parity violation.

Doctor writing survey, insurance and claim form for medical paperwork, document and script for patient records, test result and research in a hospital. Physician hands signing and planning healthcare

On September 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Treasury (collectively, the Departments) issued a Final Rule clarifying and adding additional requirements on health plans to provide equitable access to health insurance coverage for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders (SUDs), as required by the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) and implementing regulations at 45 C.F.R. Part 146 and 147 (the 2024 Final Rule).

MHPAEA is a federal law that prevents group health plans and health insurance issuers (collectively, Health Plans) that provide mental health or substance use disorder benefits from imposing less favorable benefit limitations on those benefits than it does for a medical condition or surgical procedure. This means that Health Plans cannot impose additional financial requirements or apply non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) to these benefits more stringently than those applied to medical/surgical benefits.

In the United States, mental health (“MH”) and substance use disorder (“SUD”) (collectively “MH/SUD”) have continued to represent areas of intense concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the MH struggles of essential workers and health care professionals were pushed to the forefront. However, issues related to MH/SUD have continued to escalate.

The following is Part VI of a six-part series of blog postings regarding whether a captive insurance subsidiary or one owned by the owners or affiliates of a company may represent an effective risk management tool that also provides economic benefits. Although there are various types of captive insurance, this posting will focus primarily on single parent/pure captives and how they might provide economic benefits for you or your healthcare company. Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V of the blog series are here. This posting provides an overview of certain other considerations to forming a single parent or pure captive.    

The following is Part V of a six-part series of blog postings regarding whether a captive insurance subsidiary or one owned by the owners or affiliates of a company may represent an effective risk management tool that also provides economic benefits. Although there are various types of captive insurance, this posting and the one to follow will focus primarily on single parent/pure captives and how they might provide economic benefits for you or your healthcare company. Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV of the blog series are here.

This posting provides an overview of the benefits to a company and its shareholders or members of forming a single parent or pure captive.    
The following is Part IV of a six-part series of blog postings regarding whether a captive insurance subsidiary or one owned by the owners or affiliates of a company may represent an effective risk management tool that also provides economic benefits. Although there are various types of captive insurance, this posting and the two to follow will focus primarily on single parent/pure captives and how they might provide economic benefits for you or your healthcare company. Part I, Part II and Part III of the blog series are here. This posting discusses the types of insurance coverage that may be effectively provided by a captive insurance subsidiary.    

The following is Part III of a six-part series of blog postings regarding whether a captive insurance subsidiary or one owned by the owners or affiliates of a company may represent an effective risk management tool that also provides economic benefits. Although there are various types of captive insurance, this posting and the three to follow will focus primarily on single parent/pure captives and how they might provide economic benefits for you or your healthcare company. Part I and Part II of the blog series are here.

This posting turns its attention to two basic elements of insurance – risk transfer and risk distribution.    

The following is Part II of a six-part series of blog postings regarding whether a captive insurance subsidiary or one owned by the owners or affiliates of a company may represent an effective risk management tool that also provides economic benefits. Although there are various types of captive insurance, this posting and the four to follow will focus primarily on single parent/pure captives and how they might provide economic benefits for you or healthcare business. Part I of this series can be found here.

This posting discusses an alternative to ownership of the captive by the holding company itself — how a business’s owners considering implementing captive insurance as an enterprise risk management tool can also use it as an estate planning or family wealth transfer tool.

The following is Part I of a six-part series of blog postings regarding whether a captive insurance subsidiary or one owned by the owners or affiliates of a company may represent an effective risk management tool that also provides economic benefits. Although there are various types of captive insurance, this posting and the five to follow will focus primarily on single parent/pure captives and how they might provide economic benefits for you or your healthcare business.

Effective enterprise risk management (ERM) is an essential component of any successful business that in almost all circumstances imposes costs and expenses and represents a drag on a company’s profits. Wouldn’t owners of such businesses and their managements be interested in learning about a risk management tool that provides insurance but may also result in the potential for increased earnings as well as tax savings and benefits? Captive insurance might be that tool for your company.