Regulations Issued on Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Annual and Lifetime Limits, Rescissions and Patient Protections under Health Care Reform
On June 22, 2010, the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health & Human Services issued regulatory guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act regarding prohibitions on preexisting condition exclusions, annual and lifetime limits and rescissions, as well as guidance regarding certain patient protections. These rules are generally effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (January 1, 2011 for calendar year plans). For more information on the rules, please see the Bulletin published by the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Client Service Group on June 30, 2010.
Grandfathered Plan Regulations Provide Vital Compliance Information for Employer-Sponsored Health Plans
On June 14, 2010, the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health & Human Services issued much-anticipated guidance on how a group health plan maintains or loses its status as a grandfathered plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A grandfathered plan is generally one that was in effect on March 23, 2010. Because grandfathered plans are exempt from many of the Act’s requirements, maintaining a plan’s grandfathered status has important plan design and cost implications. Please read the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group’s Bulletin published June 16, 2010, for more information on the interim final regulations.
Supreme Court Expands Time Period for Filing Title VII Disparate Impact Charges
In Lewis v. City of Chicago, the US Supreme Court ruled that the period in which to file an EEOC charge alleging that an employment practice has a disparate impact commences anew whenever that practice is applied, not when that practice was first adopted. The Lewis decision sharpens the dilemma created by last summer’s Ricci v. DeStefano decision, which held that an employer’s changing an employment practice based on its fear of possible disparate impact claims could be a basis for disparate treatment claims. For more information on the decision, please see the Labor & Employment Group’s client Alert published June 1, 2010.
