Benefits Packages – Setnor Byer Insurance & Risk

Supreme Court Requests Compromise Options in ACA Contraception Case

In Zubik v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the rights of religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations are violated by the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive-coverage mandate. Given the sensitive, often contentious issues raised in this case, the public is anxiously awaiting the Court’s decision. However, many were surprised when less than a week after hearing oral arguments, the Court ordered the parties to provide potential compromise solutions.

The ACA generally requires group health insurance plans to cover preventive care and screenings for women without cost sharing elements (copayment, coinsurance, deductible), including all contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Though generally mandatory for nonprofit employers with no religious affiliation and for-profit employers that are not closely-held (the Hobby Lobby case), religious and religiously affiliated employers can avoid the contraceptive-coverage mandate, either by exemption or accommodation.

Exemption. Federal regulations authorize an exemption for nonprofit religious employers, including churches and their integrated auxiliaries. These employers are not bound by the contraceptive-coverage mandate. Their employees and dependents do not have guaranteed contraceptive coverage.
Accommodation. Religiously affiliated nonprofit corporations may obtain an accommodation that relieves them from complying with the mandate. These employers must notify their insurance company, third-party administrator or the Department of Health and Human Services of their religious objections to providing insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Under the ACA, religious employers are exempt from the mandate, but religiously affiliated employers must take steps to obtain an accommodation. Nevertheless, these employers are not required to contract, arrange or pay for contraceptive coverage. According to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Burwell), the regulatory process to obtain an accommodation does not substantially burden religiously affiliated employers seeking to avoid the mandate.

Though some of the employers in Zubik are entitled to an accommodation, they argue that the process itself violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. According to these employers, complying with the regulatory mechanism to obtain an accommodation would make them “complicit in providing contraceptive coverage” in violation of their religion.

The passing of Justice Scalia leaves only eight justices to decide this case. Many believe they are evenly divided. In the event of a 4-4- tie, the lower court rulings would remain intact, which could lead to inconsistent application of the law nationally because the Zubik case is actually a consolidation of several different cases from across the country. Perhaps this explains why the Court issued an order directing the parties to discuss ways to reach an acceptable compromise.

We may never know for sure why the Court did this, but it will be interesting to see if this exercise produces any results. Fortunately, we shouldn’t have to wait long because the Court didn’t give the parties much time. All briefs must be filed by April 20, 2016.

Stay tuned…

At Setnor Byer Insurance & Risk, we are committed to guiding you through the constantly changing health care landscape. In addition to our other valuable risk management solutionse, Setnor Byer Insurance & Risk has an online tool to help clients complete their ACA information reports.

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to discuss how we can help you comply with health care reform.

Is Telemedicine Right For You?

Telemedicine generally refers to the practice of using telecommunications technologies (phone, Internet, etc.) to diagnose and treat patients, and in case you haven’t noticed, it’s come a long way. Consider this:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services describes telemedicine as a cost-effective alternative to providing medical care.
The American Medical Association says telemedicine is a key innovation that can maintain patient safety, improve access to health care and control costs.
Industry analysts expect significant growth in the telemedicine market over the next few years.

Employers are taking notice of the benefits of telemedicine. According to a recent survey, 22% of large U.S. employers currently offer telemedicine services to employees as a low-cost alternative to doctor office visits for non-serious medical issues; 37% expect to begin doing so in 2015.

A primary benefit of telemedicine is fewer unscheduled absences by employees needing to see or take their child to a doctor for non-serious medical issues. Research shows that a majority of doctor visits are unnecessary. A cough, for example, can often be treated safely and effectively with telemedicine. (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most frequent reason for going to the doctor is…a cough.)

Employers offering telemedicine services also benefit from:

Healthier employees
Fewer employee sick days
Increased productivity
Measureable reduction in health care (insurance) costs

Telemedicine service plans are typically structured as discount card programs. These plans are not insurance and should not be considered a substitute for health insurance. Employers considering a telemedicine program should work with a reputable broker to find the right plan and avoid those trying to take advantage of a rapidly growing market.

At Setnor Byer Insurance & Risk, we make it easy to:

Evaluate options
Find the best solution
Obtain competitive pricing
Implement and integrate a new plan into existing benefit programs

If you would like more information, please contact us.

Employee Assistance Programs under the Affordable Care Act

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) are designed to help employees prevent, identify and resolve various personal issues and matters. Many employers include EAPs in their benefits packages to enhance employee effectiveness and maintain workplace productivity. In addition to providing benefits like pre-paid legal, crisis intervention or professional development services, EAPs commonly provide health-related benefits, such as mental health, substance abuse and wellness services. Does this mean that they must comply with the Affordable Care Act?

According to final regulations issued by the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health & Human Services on October 1, 2014, the answer is…maybe.

If an EAP qualifies as an excepted benefit, it will generally be exempt from the ACA’s requirements. Otherwise, the EAP must incorporate the market reforms mandated by the ACA, such as no lifetime or annual limits. Under the final regulations, an EAP must satisfy four requirements to qualify as an excepted benefit.

The EAP cannot provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care.

The amount, scope and duration of services are considered when determining whether an EAP meets this requirement. For example, an EAP that provides only limited, short-term outpatient counseling to substance abusers without requiring prior authorization or review for medical necessity, will not be considered an EAP that provides significant benefits in the nature of medical care. Alternatively, EAPs providing disease management services (lab testing, counseling, prescription drugs, etc.) for chronic conditions, such as diabetes, do provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care.

The Departments may provide additional clarification in the future regarding when a program provides significant benefits in the nature of medical care.

Benefits provided by the EAP cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan.

This requirement has two elements:

Participants in the other group health plan must not be required to use and exhaust benefits under the EAP (making the EAP a “gatekeeper”) before becoming eligible for benefits under the other group health plan.
Eligibility for EAP benefits must not be dependent on participation in another group health plan.

Employee premiums or contributions cannot be made a condition of participation in the EAP.
The EAP cannot impose any cost-sharing requirements (co-pay, etc.).

These final regulations apply to group health plans with plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2015. Until then, the Departments will consider EAP benefits meeting the conditions of the 2013 proposed regulations or these final regulations to qualify as excepted benefits.

At Setnor Byer Insurance & Risk, we are committed to guiding you through the ACA’s market reforms. Check back with us periodically for future informational updates about the Affordable Care Act.

If you have specific questions about the ACA or if you are ready to take action and would like to see how Setnor Byer Insurance & Risk can help, contact us.

If you’d like to subscribe to our weekly newsletters please click here.