insurance

Subscribe to insurance via RSS
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.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced its plan to end the Federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) for COVID-19 on May 11, 2023. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency declarations, legislation, and regulatory waivers across government agencies, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), allowed for flexibility in the delivery of care to patients, including the expanded use of telehealth. Originally intended to conserve healthcare resources and prevent unnecessary exposure to COVID-19, the use of virtual care has exploded since the beginning of the pandemic to become an intrinsic, essential part of the healthcare delivery system. Now, at the end of the PHE, we examine the path forward for telehealth and the extent to which providers may continue to offer it to patients.

Hospice Insights

Strategic Restructuring for the Future: Exploring How Hospices Are Using Joint Ventures, Mergers and Acquisitions, and Service Diversification to Transform

Change, transformation, disruption: whatever you want to call it, it’s happening in the hospice industry over the next 5 years. It is unquestionable that the carve-in to Medicare Advantage, the rise of value-based care and steady market consolidation is changing the playing field. How do hospices respond? In this series, we explore how hospices are and can restructure their businesses. We discuss the opportunities and limits of different models: palliative care, affiliations for payor contracting or the more transformative change brought through a merger or acquisition. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, hospices can explore new ways of being. We are excited to guide you on this road and hope these conversations help as you explore these important questions within your organization and determine your best path into the future.

On July 1, 2021, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the Department of Treasury (“Treasury”), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”), the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and the Department of Health and Human Services (“CMS”) (collectively the “Departments”) jointly issued the Interim Rule – Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part 1 (hereinafter, the “Interim Rule” or the “Rule”). This Interim Rule is the first implementing regulation of the federal No Surprises Act (alternatively the “Act”) which was enacted on December 27, 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Both this Interim Rule, and the Act, are effective applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2022.

The Texas Comptroller issued an advisory opinion reversing a longstanding policy relating to Texas sales taxation of medical billing services that will impact all Texas medical management and medical billing companies. Originally set to be effective January 1, 2020,  the Comptroller last week delayed the implementation of the new position until April 1, 2020. However, the opportunity exists to work with the Comptroller to amend Texas’ tax law in the 2021 session of the Texas Legislature and prevent the new position from being implemented.

The potential impact of this policy cannot be understated. For both third-party medical billing companies and Texas medical management companies (even those wholly-controlled by the physicians, dentists, and other medical professionals it manages), the scope of “medical billing services” and the extent to which consideration flows for such services needs to be analyzed and a determination made, if required, to begin withholding and charging Texas sales tax on the required component next year. For example, the need to separately account for and state the taxable versus nontaxable component of any agreement that provides for a lump-sum fee is important (the “separately stated” strategy for sales tax compliance). With many management agreements, a fixed amount is paid to cover a broad spectrum of services.

There were several recent court decisions that have addressed the right of medical providers, acting under assignments of ERISA plan benefits from patients, to seek plan documents and summary plan descriptions, and to sue plan fiduciaries.

In one case, the district court dismissed the action, holding that the patients had not assigned their rights to sue the plan for statutory penalties. The provider attempted to obtain a retroactive assignment, but the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals held that the provider was not a participant nor a beneficiary in the plan and thus had no standing to bring a claim.

This is the second article in our series on Association Health Plans (AHP). This week’s discussion focuses on the potential impact of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) decision to relax some AHP requirements.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently expanded the ability of small groups and the self-employed to obtain health coverage through AHPs. A final rule published June 21 eases certain AHP requirements and restrictions.

A new federal rule gives small employers and the self-employed an additional avenue for obtaining group health coverage.

The final rule, released by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) June 19 and published June 21, broadens the definition of “employer” for purposes of determining who can establish multiple employer group health plans under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On Monday, March 6, 2017, House Republicans released the long awaited proposed legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The GOP bill, the “American Health Care Act” (AHCA), repeals or significantly changes major portions of the ACA involving the individual and employer mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid expansion, among others. The AHCA, which is already facing political headwinds and healthcare industry objections, has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), so the economic effect and the potential change to the number of people covered by health insurance have not been officially quantified. However, the AHCA’s overall philosophy and goals are clear, and it signals areas of concern for healthcare providers and Medicaid expansion States. In this article in our series on the effect of a “slow repeal” of the ACA, this week’s discussion focuses on the significant aspects of the proposed AHCA, potential concerns for healthcare providers, and likely next steps.

In addition to H.B. 307 (discussed in a prior post), H.B. 1566 and its companion bill, S.B. 507, propose to expand the requirement for mediation of balance bills.

Currently, Chapter 1467 of the Texas Insurance Code requires a facility-based physician to mediate balance bills upon the request of the patient if the patient is responsible to a facility-based physician, after copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance, including the amount unpaid by the administrator or insurer, for an amount greater than $500 and either (i) the facility-based physician fails to disclose projected amounts for which the patient may be responsible and the circumstances under which the enrollee would be responsible for those amounts; or (ii) the facility-based physician makes the disclosures but the amount billed is greater than the maximum amount projected in the disclosure.