On March 30, 2026, the DOL, HHS, and Treasury (the departments) disclosed in a court filing that they will no longer defend the mental health parity regulations they issued in September 2024. Instead, the departments indicated that they intend to propose replacement regulations by the end of the year. The disclosure comes nearly a year after the departments announced an indefinite pause on enforcement of the 2024 mental health parity regulations – but not the prior 2013 regulations or the underlying statutory requirements, including the requirement to perform and document a comparative analysis on nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) – in response to a legal challenge brought by a trade group.
Background
On September 9, 2024, the departments issued the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) final rule. The 2024 MHPAEA final rule built on mental health parity regulations issued in 2013 and implemented new requirements enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA 2021). Most notably, the CAA 2021 required group health plans and insurers to perform and document a comparative analysis of each NQTL imposed on mental health and substance use disorder benefits.
Among other things, the 2024 MHPAEA final rule defined the terms required to be discussed in the comparative analyses. It also included a “meaningful benefits” provision requiring plans to cover “core treatments” for any mental health conditions or substance use disorders for which the plan provides benefits. In addition, the rule required plan sponsors to certify to a “prudent process” of monitoring the service provider performing the comparative analysis and imposed certain outcomes-based metrics for evaluating access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits.
As we highlighted in a previous Compliance Corner article, the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group representing large employers, sued the departments in January 2025 to invalidate these provisions of the 2024 MHPAEA final rule. Following the change in presidential administrations, the departments announced a limited nonenforcement policy. Specifically, the departments advised that they would not enforce the portions of the 2024 MHPAEA final rule that were new in relation to prior MHPAEA regulations. However, the departments stated that MHPAEA’s statutory requirements – which include the NQTL comparative analysis requirement – would remain in effect despite the nonenforcement policy. At the time, the departments indicated that the limited nonenforcement policy would apply to violations of the 2024 MHPAEA final rule that occur prior to the issuance of a final decision in the litigation, plus an additional 18 months.
March 30 Status Report
The departments disclosed their intent to propose new MHPAEA regulations in a status report to the judge overseeing ERIC’s lawsuit. While the relevant portion of the status report is brief – only three sentences – it telegraphs that the departments are considering “significant revisions” to each of the provisions of the regulations challenged in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit remains on hold while the departments work to issue new MHPAEA rules. The departments pledged to add the project to their spring 2026 regulatory agenda, with a target date of December 31, 2026, for the issuance of proposed regulations. The court will require the departments and ERIC to provide an update on the status of proposed rulemaking by September 30, 2026. While federal rulemaking deadlines generally are not binding, the fact that the court will continue to supervise the parties suggests that the target date may be a firmer deadline than usual.
Employer Takeaway
Despite these developments, employers must still comply with MHPAEA, including the CAA 2021 NQTL comparative analysis requirement, and should document their compliance efforts. While future regulations are likely to address the specific content required in a comparative analysis, neither the May 2025 nonenforcement policy nor the March 30 status update relieves plan sponsors from the obligation to perform and document a comparative analysis.
Employers should continue to monitor participant complaints regarding mental health and substance use disorder benefits. In particular, employers should be mindful of plan terms that impose barriers to accessing such benefits and discuss these terms with their carrier or third-party administrator (TPA). As discussed in our January 27, 2026, Compliance Corner article, the DOL recently reaffirmed that MHPAEA compliance remains an enforcement priority, with an emphasis on unjustified treatment exclusions, inaccurate provider lists, unreasonable limits on care, and burdensome claims processes.
Carriers are generally responsible for performing and documenting comparative analyses for fully insured group health plans. For self-insured plans, a TPA or other service provider may produce comparative analyses, but plan sponsors are ultimately responsible for MHPAEA compliance.
For insights on navigating MHPAEA compliance and the CAA 2021 MHPAEA NQTL comparative analysis requirements, please see our article MHPAEA Compliance in an Uncertain Regulatory Environment. You can also ask your broker or consultant for a copy of the NFP publication MHPAEA NQTL Comparative Analysis: A Guide for Employers.
For additional insights on the departments’ position, please see the ERIC v. HHS March 30 Status Report.