Phia Group Russo & Minchoff

State Parity Law Trumps ERISA Plan’s Exclusion, So Case Against Plan Advances

cmonfils | January 18, 2012

Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits      January 2012 | Vol. 19, No. 4 

As illustrated here, ERISA did not preempt the Washington Mental Health Parity Act. 

Even though it correctly applied an insured ERISA plan’s coverage restrictions on neurodevelopmental therapy for children over six years old, the administrator’s refusal to pay a 10-year-old dependent’s mental health treatment violated a state law that bound insurers and HMOs. (more…)

States to Get U.S. Bonuses for Covering Uninsured Children

cmonfils | January 5, 2012

CHIP –AL, AK, CA, ID, IL, OA, KS, LA, MI, NJ, NM, OH, OR, WA, WI

Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) — Twenty-three states will share $296.5 million in U.S. payments for encouraging low-income families to enroll their children in public health programs.

Bonuses announced today reward states that streamline eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The effort is aimed at children younger than 19 from households with annual incomes of as much as $45,000 for a family of four, though some states have more generous criteria.

State Health Care Reform Update

cmonfils | October 26, 2011

from Spencer’s Benefits Reports: For the last few years, states have been leading the way toward more comprehensive health care coverage to ensure that more people have or can obtain health insurance. With the passage of federal health care reform, states will have increasing responsibilities in regard to employer-provided health insurance benefits. Spencer’s Benefits Reports continues to provide regular updates about state health care reform.

Appeals Court Weighs Individual Mandate

cmonfils | September 26, 2011

www.benefitspro.com

September 23, 2011    By Mark Sherman , Nedra Pickler

WASHINGTON (AP) — A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.

The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama’s signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. (more…)

States Move To Implement Health Reform Provisions

cmonfils | September 19, 2011

www.hr.cch.com

CCH® BENEFITS — 09/01/11
from Spencer’s Benefits Reports: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s State Health Facts, 23 states have established American Health Benefit Exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), have enacted legislation with the intent to establish an Exchange, or have Exchange legislation pending.
Massachusetts and Vermont have established Exchanges, while California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted legislation to establish an Exchange. Hawaii’s Exchange will be a nonprofit, Vermont Exchange will be operated by the state. The rest of the Exchanges will be quasi-governmental.
The Exchange will be a clearinghouse and contract with all qualified health plans in Colorado and Hawaii. In California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont, the Exchange will be an active purchaser contracting with selected health plans and/or negotiating premium prices with health plans. The other states have not yet decided the type of Exchange they will operate.

In Illinois, Indiana (by executive order of the governor), North Dakota, and Virginia, legislation has established the intent to set up an Exchange, while Alabama (by executive order of the governor), Georgia (by executive order of the governor), Mississippi, and Wyoming will study the feasilibility of an Exchange.
The District of Columbia, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have Exchange legislation pending.
For more information, visit http://statehealthfacts.kff.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=962&cat=17.
Rate Review Programs
The federal government will either conduct or assist health insurance rate reviews in nine states, according to the most recent fact sheet from the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), which discusses the rate review requirements included in the ACA.
According to the CCIIO, as of Aug. 15, 2011, state rate review procedures were as follows:
  43 states, the District of Columbia, and one U.S. territory have effective rate review in at least one insurance market;
  41 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have effective review for all insurance markets and issuers.
  In two states (Virginia, Pennsylvania), the federal government will partner with the state to conduct reviews; and
  The federal government will conduct reviews in seven states (Wyoming, Montana, Missouri, Louisiana, Idaho, Arizona, and Alabama) and four U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, and Puerto Rico) until those areas are able to strengthen their review processes and authorities.
Starting Sept. 1, 2011, insurers seeking rate increases of 10% or more for non-grandfathered plans in the individual and small group markets are required to publicly disclose the proposed increases and the justification for them.
For more information, visit http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/factsheets/rate_review_fact_sheet.html.

Feeling Pinched – Hospitals, Docs Anxious As ‘Provider Payment Cuts Are Pretty Easy To Do’

cmonfils | August 15, 2011

www.modernhealthcare.com        By Rich Daly    August 8, 2011

The newly enacted debt-ceiling deal may have saved the nation from a financial crisis, but it also managed to paint a target on the backs of healthcare providers. And the potential size and scope of the cuts they could face has providers scrambling for a response.  (more…)

Striking Coca-Cola Workers Sue After Benefits Terminated

Adam V. Russo | September 7, 2010

By Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance Magazine, www.businessinsurance.com

SEATTLE—A group of striking Washington Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. workers have filed a lawsuit claiming their employer terminated their health benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The suit, filed Aug. 27 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, asserts that health benefits were “wrongfully withheld from striking employees” after they went on strike Aug. 23. (more…)

WA State Health Care Reform Update

Adam V. Russo | February 23, 2010

Washington. The state’s domestic partnership law went into effect on Dec. 3, 2009, and has some implications for employers in the state. The law provides that for all purposes, registered domestic partners must be treated the same as married spouses. This means that employment-related benefits must be extended to the registered domestic partner of employees on the same basis as spouses. For more information, visit http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/domesticpartnerships/Default.aspx.

State Health Care Reform Update

Adam V. Russo | January 25, 2010

For the last few years, states have been leading the way toward more comprehensive health care coverage to ensure that more people have or can obtain health insurance. Because of the potential impact of this ongoing activity on employer-provided health insurance benefits, Spencer’s Benefits Reports provides regular updates about state health care reform.

Washington. Recent budget cuts have forced the state’s low-cost health insurance program, Washington’s Basic Health plan, to take no new customers, while the recession has increased demand for the plan. Approximately 78,834 people are enrolled in the plan, while 78,419 people are on the plan’s waiting list. For more information, visit http://www.basichealth.hca.wa.gov/.

State Laws Cannot Require More From Self Funded Plans Than ERISA. . .

Adam V. Russo | April 4, 2007

Recently, in the state of Washington, a law was passed that prohibits workplace discrimination based upon sexual orientation. When an employee protested the denial of health care coverage to her partner by her employer’s self funded ERISA plan, she brought the matter to court. The court in turn determined that the law could not be enforced against private employers with self funded plans, as it conflicted with ERISA. (more…)