WPI Insider Briefing: After ACA "Repeal and Replace" Effort Fails, What's Next For Employers on Health Care and Other Workplace Policy Issues?

by Littler
Contact

Last month began with significant momentum but long odds that Senate Republicans would pass legislation repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  In the early hours of July 28, GOP efforts came to a screeching halt as a last-ditch "skinny" repeal bill failed, all but ending the seven-year quest to overturn the sweeping health care law.  Meanwhile, efforts to seat new members to the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission slowly moved forward, as did legislative and regulatory attempts to curb the prior administration's labor and employment agenda. This month's Insider Briefing explains how health care reform efforts failed, discusses the status of the ACA and how it could still be altered, reviews the latest regulatory efforts to shape labor and employment law in the new administration, and outlines what Congress managed to accomplish before the August recess and what's in store for it when it reconvenes.

"Skinny" ACA Repeal

In the dramatic 49-51 vote on July 28, Republican Senator John McCain (R-AZ) joined Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) and all Democrats in opposing the skinny bill amendment, titled the Healthcare Freedom Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had hoped that the amendment repealing only targeted portions of the ACA would be the least common denominator garnering enough support to pass the Senate and initiate a conference with the House to negotiate a final legislative package.  The suspense-filled vote at 1:30 a.m. capped a months-long effort by congressional Republican leaders and the White House to find consensus within the party for overhauling the ACA.  The gap between conservative and moderate factions of the party ultimately proved to be too wide to bridge.     

The Healthcare Freedom Act, which would have eliminated the penalties on the ACA's employer mandate though 2024, was offered after the Senate rejected a more comprehensive ACA repeal and replace plan as well as a separate straight repeal amendment. The Healthcare Freedom Act was narrower in scope than the House-passed American Health Care Act, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated would result in 23 million more uninsured people in 2026 than under current law.  The CBO projected that, by contrast, the Healthcare Freedom Act would have increased the number of uninsured by 15 million next year and an additional million by 2026, a number that still undermined support for the proposal. 

In the wake of the failed Senate vote, congressional Republican leaders expressed their desire to move on from the ACA to other legislative matters, namely tax reform. However, many uncertainties remain about the ACA and its implementation. ACA-related legislation may still make its way to the legislative calendar in the months ahead.  The apparent end of the congressional effort to repeal and replace the ACA through the budget reconciliation process, which would have required only a simple majority vote to pass the Senate, has given rise to discussions about potential bipartisan legislation to stabilize the individual insurance market. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) announced that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee will hold bipartisan hearings on shoring up the ACA exchanges.

Health insurers face a September 27 deadline to decide if they will offer individual plans through the ACA exchanges in 2018 and, if so, how much to charge.  Complicating this decision is the uncertainty about whether the administration will continue to fund "cost-sharing reduction" payments to insurance companies that participate in the ACA exchange to help cover cost-sharing and deductibles for low-income individuals and families.     

Pressure for bipartisan legislation to fund the cost-sharing reductions, currently the subject of a House lawsuit challenging their validity, will likely continue to rise. This could be the vehicle for additional ACA-related changes. But any such changes would require 60 votes to pass the Senate and Democratic support may also be needed for any measure to pass the House.  Legislation to repeal or further delay the "Cadillac" excise tax on high-cost plans and to limit the scope of the employer mandate may become part of the effort.

Although a push for Congress to make targeted changes to ACA provisions of most concern to employers may accompany this broader legislative effort, employers should not bank on a legislative reprieve from the ACA's requirements. With the failure of the repeal effort and the uncertainty of any future legislative action, focus has shifted to the executive branch. Action by the executive branch to shape the ACA's implementation requirements could come in various forms – from regulatory changes and sub-regulatory guidance to enforcement policy aimed at easing ACA's burden.  For employers eyeing their ACA obligations, the ACA remains the law of the land. Yet, the shape of their obligations may well change under the Trump administration and its goal, as articulated in President Trump's executive order, to reduce regulatory burdens. Although the Republican effort to repeal the ACA may be at an end, the debate over health care and its impact on employers will no doubt continue.

National Labor Relations Board

Most of the attention in the weeks leading up to the congressional August break was on health care. However, there were some notable labor and employment-related developments during this time.  On August 2, the Senate voted 50–48 to confirm Marvin Kaplan to fill an open seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  Kaplan has served as Chief Counsel for the Acting Chair of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission since August 2015.  Upon his confirmation, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander issued a statement that:  "After years of playing the role of advocate, the NLRB should be restored to the role of neutral umpire. I'm hopeful that Mr. Kaplan will help restore some balance to the labor board to ensure stable labor relations and free flow of commerce."

The Senate HELP Committee held a hearing on Kaplan's nomination and that of Littler Shareholder William Emanuel on July 13. The committee favorably reported both nominations on July 19.  A Senate vote on Emanuel's nomination is expected after the Senate returns from the August break.  Meanwhile, the current Chair of the NLRB, Philip Miscimarra, has announced he is opting out of another term, and will depart when his current term ends in December.

Congressional Activity

Congress will have a full agenda of nominations and legislative activity when it returns after Labor Day. President Trump has called upon Congress to send him a tax reform bill by November, an aggressive timetable. Congress has yet to pass a budget resolution, which is needed if the budget reconciliation process is going to be used to pass tax reform with a simple majority vote in the Senate. In addition, a vote on the debt ceiling looms. Funding bills for FY 2018 are on the list of must-pass legislation, although a final package is not likely until year-end. The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2018 Labor, Health and Human Services funding bill on July 19.

The bill provides a total of $10.8 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Labor (DOL), which is $1.3 billion below the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.  The bill also includes a new provision prohibiting enforcement of the DOL's controversial "fiduciary" rule. On July 7, the DOL's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) published in the Federal Register a Request for Information on various questions related to the fiduciary rule, signaling that regulatory changes to the rule are forthcoming. Most recently, in court filings related to an ongoing challenge to the fiduciary rule, the DOL on August 9 indicated that it will propose delaying portions of the rule's implementation until July 1, 2019.

Congressional opponents of the rule continue to seek legislative means to overturn or modify the rule. The Appropriations Committee was not the only House Committee taking aim at the rule. The House Education and Workforce Committee likewise approved a bill to repeal the rule and replace it with a disclosure-based best interest advice standard. The Affordable Retirement Advice for Savers Act passed out of the Committee on July 19 on a party-line vote and now moves to a full floor vote in the House.

The House Appropriations Committee-approved bill also included a policy rider targeting a controversial NLRB decision. The Committee adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) prohibiting the NLRB from enforcing the interpretation regarding "micro unions" in the Specialty Healthcare decision. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote. The prospect for these or other policy riders making their way into a final appropriations bill remain to be seen. Their fate likely will be determined in high-level negotiations among congressional leaders of both parties and the White House.

Joint Employment

Outside of the appropriations process, standalone legislation was recently introduced taking aim at another controversial NLRB decision, the 2015 Browning-Ferris ruling. In the 2015 decision, the Board broadened the test for determining joint employment and assessing liability under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), upending long-standing precedent and creating uncertainty for the business community. The standard shifted from one where the purported joint employer exercised "direct and immediate" control over the other entity's employees, to a much looser "indirect" control standard.

On July 27, the Save Local Business Act was introduced in the House by Representatives Bradley Byrne (R-AL) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX), among others. The bipartisan bill would amend two labor and employment statutes to clarify when an entity can be deemed a "joint employer." Introduction of the legislation followed a July 12 hearing held by the House Education and Workforce Committee on the need for legislation to redefine the joint-employer standard.

At the hearing, witnesses from the employer community urged Congress to craft a legislative solution to simplify the law on joint employment. The Save Local Business Act does that by amending the definitions of the term "employer" as used in the NLRA and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Specifically, the bill states that a person may constitute a joint employer as to an employee "only if such person directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a limited and routine manner, exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment." At a press conference held with small business owners and workers, Rep. Byrne stated, "under this bipartisan legislation, workers, and the businesses they work for, will be given much needed clarity and certainty."

The bill is notable for its bipartisan co-sponsorship, a rarity for most labor-related bills. Sufficient bipartisan support would be needed to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. If the bill does pass both Chambers of Congress, President Trump is expected to sign it.  

Regulatory Agenda

In addition to legislative proposals to reverse the Obama administration's labor and employment agenda, the first regulatory agenda released by the Trump administration indicated that changes to the prior administration's workplace policy initiatives will move through regulatory channels as well.

The updated 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions lists agency regulatory priorities for the near term and longer term.  The latest agenda is not only much less aggressive than the prior agenda in terms of its new rulemaking plans, but also sets forth plans to review and reverse or modify a number of controversial Obama-era rulemakings.

The DOL's latest regulatory agenda seems in keeping with President Trump's signed Executive Order (EO) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and EO 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. The latter EO provides that federal agencies must decide which of their existing rules are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective, and take corrective action. Among the rules that the DOL has targeted for review, possible revision, or rescission include the Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) white collar overtime regulation, the EBSA's fiduciary rule, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) rule setting new limits on occupational exposure to crystalline silica, and the Office of Labor Management Standards' (OLMS) changes to the "advice" exemption of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, otherwise known as the "persuader" rule.

The regulatory agenda indicated that the WHD planned to issue a "Request for Information" (RFI) on the overtime rule in July 2017. On July 25, the Agency did just that, announcing its request for input from the public before issuing revised proposed overtime exemption regulations to address, most significantly, the minimum salary level required for exempt status.

In seeking public comment, the Department acknowledges stakeholder concerns that the salary level set in the 2016 regulations "was too high" and invites public comments on the 2016 final rule. The DOL seeks comments on a number of questions, such as: Would updating the 2004 salary level for inflation (which excluded from the exemption roughly the bottom 20% of salaried employees in the South and in the retail industry) be the appropriate basis for setting the standard salary level and, if so, what measure of inflation should be used?  The RFI also asks for information on the impact of the 2016 rule. Reponses to these questions will no doubt be used to shape revisions to the 2016 rule. Thus, employer community feedback is critical. Comments are due September 25, 2017.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is also evaluating its existing regulations pursuant the White House directive laid out in EO 13777. The EEOC has asked the public to help an agency task force, formed pursuant to the EO, evaluate whether any job bias regulations should be repealed, replaced, or modified. The Regulatory Reform Task Force will try to identify rules that inhibit job creation, have costs that outweigh any benefits, or otherwise are inconsistent with administration objectives, according to a notice recently posted on the EEOC's website.

In other EEOC news, Janet Dhillon's nomination to be the new Chair of the EEOC has been sent to the Senate, although the timing of her confirmation is unclear. A hearing on her nomination has not yet been set. President Trump announced that he would nominate Daniel Gade to fill the other remaining open seat on the five-member Commission. Once these seats are filled, changes to regulations identified by the task force as well as to the agency's guidance are expected. 

August may be a relatively quiet month in Washington. But employers can expect an accelerating pace of regulatory changes – and perhaps some legislative ones – when Congress returns in September. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.