Insights

On March 4, 2022, Gov. Inslee signed SB 5564 into law, which prohibits employers from obtaining individually identifiable information regarding an employee's participation in an EAP program. Further, it will require employers to keep individually identifiable information gathered during EAP participation to be kept confidential. Additionally, an employee's participation or nonparticipation in an EAP program should not be a factor in a decision affecting an employee's job security, promotional o

On March 3, 2022, Gov. Holcomb signed HB 1001 into law. The new law prohibits an employer from imposing a requirement that employees receive immunization against COVID-19 unless the employer provides individual exemptions that allow an employee to opt out of the requirement for medical reasons, religious reasons or immunity from COVID-19 acquired from prior infection with COVID-19. HB 1001 »

On February 24, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that HIPAA did not allow a carrier to deny the plaintiff's request for documents when the documents at issue did not contain protected information and the carrier had a fiduciary duty to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to correct an inadequate HIPAA release form. In Wilson v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (4th Cir., No. 20-2044, February 24, 2022), the plaintiff challenged the defendant carrier's denial of a series of claim

The Executive Office for Administration and Finance recently announced that the Massachusetts COVID-19 Emergency Paid Sick Leave (MA COVID EPSL) program would be ending on March 15, 2022. The MA COVID EPSL program began on May 28, 2021. Employers have until April 29, 2022, to file their reimbursement applications for qualifying leave wages taken between May 28, 2021, and March 15, 2022. The instructions of how to apply for reimbursements can be found here. The MA COVID EPSL program required emp

On March 12, 2022, the Department of Insurance published Notice 2022-04. The notice relates to an annual adjustment to the maximum benefit amount for coverage of autism spectrum disorders. According to the notice, for plans/policies issued or renewed in 2023, the maximum benefit is $45,808 (up from $42,811 for plans/policies issued or renewed in 2022). Employers with questions on the maximum benefit should work with their carriers. Notice 2022-04 »

On March 11, 2022, Commissioner Downing issued an Advisory Memo regarding coverage of preventive colonoscopies without cost-sharing. The memo follows recent federal guidance based on a recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The ACA requires group health plans and health insurers to cover certain preventive services without cost-sharing, including evidence-based items and services with an 'A' or 'B' recommendation by the USPSTF. The USPSTF recommends an 'A'

Annually, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is required to review the Universal Paid Leave Fund for solvency. On March 1, 2022, the OCFO announced that the current employer contribution rate and benefits would result in a surplus of $500 million. Subsequently, the OCFO announced a reduction in the employer contribution from 0.62% of wages to 0.26%. The maximum leave will also increase from eight weeks per year to twelve weeks. As a reminder, eligible employees may take up to eig

On March 7, 2022, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report describing different types of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). CRS is a federal legislative branch agency serving Congress members and committees. The report highlights key elements of each HRA type, including eligibility, contributions, distributions and the treatment of unused balances. Specifically, the types of HRAs the report features are: Group health plan HRAs Qualified small employer HRAs (QSE

On February 28, 2022, the US Supreme Court declined to review the appeal of a challenge to California's mandated payroll deduction IRA program, CalSavers. The plaintiff, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, requested the review. The plaintiff asserted that ERISA preempted the state law. The plaintiff also argued that the California law conflicted with ERISA's structure and stripped employers of ERISA's protections. The federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had each d