Employment Law Observer

When Congressional drafters wrote the Affordable Care Act 10 years ago, they included a provision requiring group health plans to provide preventive care without cost sharing. Much of that coverage requirement was set forth in the Act itself with some specificity. It included immunizations, screenings, and other “evidence-based items or services” recommended by the United States Preventive Services Tax Force. The Act also provided for special rules for preventive care “with respect to women;” however, those rules were not specified in the Act and were to be determined by a government agency. After the law safely passed, the Health Resources and Services Administration, acting on the findings of the Institute of Medicine, decided that preventive care with respect to women must include coverage for contraceptive services without cost sharing. In the decade since that provision became law, plan sponsors have been dealing with nearly constant administrative and judicial pinball regarding this contentious topic.

The long-running efforts of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to provide guidance on what constitutes a “voluntary” wellness program were called into question by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case A.A.R.P. vs. U.S. E.E.O.C.

Note: Though the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell (issued today) does not directly implicate an employment issue, the opinion is quite significant and likely of interest to many employers who have been following the developments of the Affordable Care Act. Thus, we share a summary of the opinion addressing the latest challenge to the ACA prepared by our colleagues in Hinshaw's national Appellate Practice Group.

The moving target that is the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate keeps on moving.

The question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor can have very important consequences, as the two categories receive very different treatment under the law.

With the deadline to select health coverage just days away, the Obama administration has given an early Christmas present to individuals whose policies were cancelled because of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

More than a million California residents whose health plans were cancelled under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, will not be able to keep their existing coverage, despite President Obama’s directive that insurers keep such plans available for another year.

Dysfunctional websites. Low enrollment numbers. Public outrage over cancelled health policies. Mea cuplas. Presidential administrative “fix.”  Competing Congressional solutions. Finger pointing. It’s enough to make your head spin!

On October 24, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, held that a for-profit natural foods corporation could not establish that it can exercise religion, and therefore could not use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (RFRA), as a vehicle to challenge the contraceptive care requirements created by the Affordable Care Act. Eden Foods, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 13-1677 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2013). In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff corporation's chairman, president and sole shareholder lacked standing to challenge the obligations solely imposed upon the corporate employer. The framing of the issues by the Court points out that what tripped up plaintiffs' attempt to obtain a court order exempting the employer from the contraceptive care requirements did not arise from the U.S. Constitution.

Mounting technical delays are complicating the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

An important deadline for employers regarding the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is just around the corner.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have published proposed rules establishing reporting requirements for employers and insurers under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), or Obamacare.

On May 29, 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and U.S. Department of Labor issued the final rule governing employee wellness programs under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This rule is intended to provide comprehensive guidance as to the general requirements for wellness programs by restructuring the regulations proposed by the departments in November 2012. These regulations replace the wellness program provisions of paragraph (f) of the 2006 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) nondiscrimination and wellness provisions jointly published by HHS and the Treasury and implement Section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS). As amended by the ACA, the PHS’ nondiscrimination and wellness provisions largely reflect the 2006 regulations and extend the HIPAA nondiscrimination protections to the individual market. The rule applies to group health insurance coverage for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2014.

The Department of Labor has issued a “self-compliance tool,” (complete with a handy checklist) to help employers operating group health plans comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), an employer is required to provide the following for breastfeeding mothers who are employees:

Statistics released earlier this week by the Department of Labor show that the Department is taking seriously the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide employees with an opportunity for expression of breastmilk. The data — released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Wage and Hour Laws blog —– shows that over four dozen employers were investigated for alleged wrongful practices during the first two years of the requirement’s existence. Three dozen of the investigated employers were ultimately cited for violations of the law.  These statistics underscore the need for employers to be aware of and comply with the new breastfeeding-break requirement — the Department of Labor is obviously taking the rule seriously, and employers should do the same.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., the ACA or “Obamacare”) requires employers to provide their employees with comfortable opportunities to express breast milk while at work. Specifically, the ACA mandates that employers must provide employees with unpaid breaks during which to express breast milk as well as “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion with coworkers and the public” in which to do so. 29 U.S.C. §207(r). A federal district court judge in Iowa ruled earlier this week, however, that an employee whose rights are violated under this provision may not sue her employer. Instead, she must file a claim directly with the Department of Labor, which is then charged with enforcing the rules.