BenefitsWire

“ The U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) recently published a final rule updating healthcare price transparency disclosure requirements under the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) rules for non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurers. The TiC rule includes special rules for self-insured plans and has phased applicability dates through 2027.” MORE >>

Source: Segal

HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request for Health Center Program Forms to OMB for review and approval, allowing for public comment during the review period. MORE >>

Source: Federal Register

“The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released a proposed rule Oct. 16 seeking to codify regulations that will improve the accuracy of Medicare Advantage plan provider directories, establish transparency and compensation requirements for pharmacy benefit managers and their affiliates, and reduce copayments for generic drugs to $0 for low-income Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Among the proposed rule’s provisions, it would require MA plans to verify and update their provider directory information at least every 90 days and report to CMS an accuracy score, which would also be displayed publicly on the plans’ public-facing directories.” MORE >>

Source: aha.org

“Guardian reduced and then terminated Plaintiff’s disability-benefit payments, and Plaintiff sued under state law. Guardian argued that ERISA preempts those state-law claims and, at Guardian’s request, the court bifurcated the case, devoting Phase I to preemption and setting roughly three months for wide-ranging discovery on that issue. Guardian produced its claim file and served initial disclosures. After Phase I discovery closed, Guardian filed its preemption brief and attached a declaration from its employee Anne Albrecht, its Key Account Manager, describing the formation of the policy at issue. Plaintiff then moved under Rule 37 to strike the declaration or, alternatively, to depose Albre” MORE >>

Source: Roberts Disability Law

“A gay former employee of Catholic Relief Services may proceed with his lawsuit alleging that the nonprofit organization’s decision to terminate dependent health benefits for his male spouse violated federal and state civil rights laws, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday. In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel affirmed a lower court’s holding in favor of the plaintiff. It rejected arguments presented by CRS that its position conformed with the First Amendment, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Maryland state law. Neither statute fully immunizes all employment decisions by religious employers involving employees in nonministerial roles, the court explained.” MORE >>

Source: HR Dive