It has been an eventful 10 days in the courts and in Congress for halting impending regulations and setting the stage to roll-back new rules implemented by the Obama Administration. Employers can expect a repeal of recently passed regulations is on the horizon in the area of benefits regulation.

ACA — 1557 Regulations: Discrimination Based on Gender Identity or Pregnancy Termination

A nationwide injunction prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing nondiscrimination rules promulgated under ACA section 1557 as they relate to discrimination on the basis of gender identity or termination of pregnancy was imposed by a federal judge on December 31, 2016. (Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell, N.D. Tex., No. 16-cv-108, 12/31/16)  The plaintiffs argued that section 1557 regulations forced health care professionals and religious-based facilities to provide gender transition services against their medical judgment and religious beliefs.

Regulations under 1557 have been challenged in a number of suits across the country, the most recent being a case filed by a collection of Catholic organizations in North Dakota. (Catholic Benefits Ass’n v. Burwell, D.N.D., No. 3:16-cv-432, filed 12/28/2016) Plaintiffs are arguing that the rules improperly require religious health-care organizations and benefits providers to provide services and insurance coverage relating to certain procedures that are in violation of their religious beliefs.

Since the passage of these regulations, employer-sponsors of health plans have been scrambling to determine if the rules require that they cover gender reassignment, among other things. Generally speaking, most employer-sponsored health plans are not “covered entities” under Section 1557 because they do not receive direct subsidies from HHS.

The remaining antidiscrimination provisions of the 1557 regulations which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, race, color, age, national origin, or sex other than gender identity, were generally effective January 1, 2017.

The DOL Fiduciary Rule: Proposed 2-Year Delay for Effective Date (H. R. 355)

A bill was introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) on 1/6/2017 proposing a 2-year delay in the effective date of the DOL Fiduciary Rule.   The Fiduciary Rule is scheduled to take effect April 10, 2017, with full compliance required by January 1, 2018.

Republicans have repeatedly challenged the DOL Fiduciary Rule, but presumably stand a better chance of success under President-elect Donald Trump.

En Bloc Reconsideration of Agency Regulations by Congress – Retroactive Consideration

Bills have been introduced in both the Senate (S.34) and the House (H.R 21) that would empower Congress to make a wholesale repeal at once of multiple regulations that were passed by the Obama Administration in the last half of 2016. The House passed the Midnight Rules Relief Act (H. R. 21) on 1/4/17, one day after it was introduced.   The Senate bill was introduced 1/5/2017.

The measures amend the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) to allow Congress to repeal multiple rules and regulations in one joint resolution. The CRA currently requires that regulations be considered individually.

Regulations promulgated in the last half of 2016 by the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services as well as other agencies could come under review under these bills.

New Requirements of the Process of Agency Adoption of Regulations

Two bills have been introduced in the House to add substantial Congressional review of regulations promulgated by governmental agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Department of Labor. The “Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act” (H. R. 26) and the “Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017” (H.R. 5) substantially limit agencies by requiring multiple additional steps in the rulemaking process.

The “Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act” (H. R. 26) requires Congress to act before any major rules take effect. Under the bill, an agency promulgating rules would have to publish certain information in the Federal Register and include in its report to Congress and to the Government Accountability Offices 1) a classification of the rule as major or non-major, and 2) a copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule that includes an analysis of any jobs added or lost.  The bill includes standards for determining if a rule is major or non-major and sets forth the congressional approval procedure for major rules and the congressional disapproval procedure for non-major rules.

The “Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017” (H.R. 5) likewise imposes a number of steps on the formulation of new regulations and guidance documents, clarifies the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations, and requires a rigorous analysis of potential impacts of proposed rules on small entities.

[View source.]