ERISA Blog | Changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rules A Primer for Self-Insured Group Health Plans
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - IRS 2024 Health Plan Affordability Threshold May Put Some at Risk
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee and Health Benefits One Year After Dobbs - Employment Law This Week®
The Burr Broadcast April 2023 - The Official End of COVID-19 Emergencies
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 138: Mason Ellerbe, Lead Executive for High Value Health, OneDigital
Employment Law Now VI-121 - Top 5 Fall Things You Need To Know
How the Dobbs Supreme Court Decision Affects Employee Benefits
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Health Plan Transparency Requirements
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Group Health Plan Service Provider Compensation Disclosure Requirements
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - 2023 Benefits Forecast with Mercer
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New Prescription Drug and Health Coverage Reporting Requirements
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS in Review, Texas Vaccine Mandate Ban, Health Premium Incentives - Employment Law This Week®
Navigating the Nuances of the COBRA Subsidy Under the American Rescue Plan Act
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Can Employers Impose a Health Insurance Surcharge on Plan Participants Not Vaccinated for COVID-19?
AGG Talks: Solving Employers’ Problems - Health Plan Premium Surcharges for the Unvaccinated: Are They Legal and How Do They Work?
Podcast: What's New for Insurers in Mental Health Parity Compliance - Diagnosing Health Care
Leading in a Lonely World Podcast: Meet Jamie Pagliaro, a Leader Who has Made His “Passion” for Helping Others His Life’s Work
COBRA Deadlines and Proofs of Mailing in Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co. Board of Trustees
Midyear Premium Increases and Cafeteria Plan Rules
How the American Rescue Plan Act Affects COBRA
On March 30, 2023, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion and order in Braidwood Mgmt. Inc. v. Becerra that vacates the implementation and enforcement of certain preventive service provisions...more
The US Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (the Departments) recently issued a proposed rule (the proposed rule) to eliminate a moral exemption to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive mandate...more
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more
On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether religious employers are required to offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage. In its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor v....more
The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more
Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more
On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more
A Pennsylvania federal judge granted Pennsylvania and New Jersey a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking two Trump administration final rules. The two final rules create exemptions for moral and religious objections to...more
On January 14, 2019, a district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the application of final regulations governing religious and moral-based exemptions from the...more
Timely Topics - The final rule implementing Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on May...more
In Zubik v. Burwell, the justices vacated and remanded six federal appellate judgements on whether an accommodation (described below) for employers with religious objections to providing coverage for some or all contraception...more
In a recent Supreme Court case, Zubik v. Burwell, the justices vacated and remanded six federal appellate judgements on whether an accommodation (described below) for employers that object to providing contraceptive coverage...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously remanded a consolidated appeal of seven cases addressing the contraceptive-coverage “accommodation” for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the Courts of...more
The Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion remanded Zubick v. Burwell — and the six cases consolidated with Zubick — back to the Courts of Appeals to rule on the contraceptive opt-out notice provisions. The Court directed the...more
The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether religiously affiliated nonprofits can be required to affirmatively “opt out” of providing contraceptive coverage to their employees, which would have triggered separate...more
Zubik v. Burwell and several consolidated cases challenged a federal regulation requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans unless they submit a form either to their insurer or to the...more
Regardless of one’s preferred metaphor, the Supreme Court of the United States is adept at ducking, punting, and otherwise avoiding messy and socially divisive interpretive issues. Every once in a while, the parties even help...more
Does filling out a form burden religious beliefs? We’re about to find out. On November 6, the Supreme Court agreed to review a group of seven cases (led by No. 14-1418, Zubik v. Burwell) brought by religious non-profit...more
On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, holding that closely held corporations could refuse to provide contraceptive coverage mandated by U.S. Department of Health...more
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that regulations under the Affordable Care Act that require employer group health plans to provide contraceptive coverage violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)....more
Steve Hazen alerted me to the fact that California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed an amicus brief in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 13-354. The question presented in that...more