ERISA Reform as Health Reform: The Case for an ERISA Preemption Waiver.

If federal health reforms continue to rely on employer-sponsored health care coverage, ERISA preemption reform should be part of the next steps. State-level reform has acquired greater urgency, while the justifications for preempting that source of reform has eroded. This article recommends a statutory waiver for ERISA preemption as a feasible way to adapt to these circumstances. It offers proposed statutory text for reformers inclined to pursue ERISA reform as health reform.

Carve-out plan financial requirements associated with national behavioral health parity.

OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in carve-out financial requirements (copayments, coinsurance, use of deductibles, and out-of-pocket maxima) following the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Specialty mental health benefit design information for employer-sponsored carve-out plans from a national managed behavioral health organization's claims processing engine (2008-2013). STUDY DESIGN: This pre-post study reports linear and logistic regression as the main analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: NA. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Copayments for in-network emergency room (-$44.9, 95% CI: -78.3, -11.5; preparity mean: $56.2), outpatient services (eg, individual psychotherapy: -$7.4, 95% CI: -10.5, -4.2; preparity mean: $17.8), and out-of-network coinsurance for emergency room (-11 percentage points, 95% CI: -16.7, -5.4; preparity mean: 38.8 percent) and outpatient (eg, individual psychotherapy: -5.8 percentage points, 95% CI: -10.0, -1.6; preparity mean 41.0 percent) decreased. Probability of family OOP maxima use (29 percentage points, 95% CI: 19.3, 38.6; preparity mean: 36 percent) increased. In-network outpatient coinsurance increased (eg, individual psychotherapy: 4.5 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.9; preparity mean: 2.7 percent), as did probability of use of family deductibles (15 percentage points, 95% CI: 6.1, 23.3; preparity mean: 38 percent). CONCLUSIONS: MHPAEA was associated with increased generosity in most financial requirements observed here. However, increased use of deductibles may have reduced generosity for some patients.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program: Expiration of Coverage of Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners; Federal Flexible Benefits Plan: Pre-Tax Payment of Health Benefits Premiums: Conforming Amendments. Final rule.

On October 30, 2013, OPM published final regulations in the Federal Register to expand coverage for children of same-sex domestic partners under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program and the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). The regulation allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living in states that did not allow same-sex couples to marry to be covered family members under the FEHB and the FEDVIP. Due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all states, OPM published an interim final regulation on December 2, 2016, that created a regulatory exception that only allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living overseas to maintain their FEHB and FEDVIP coverage until September 30, 2018. OPM recognized that there were additional requirements placed on overseas federal employees that did not apply to other civilian employees with duty stations in the United States making it difficult to travel to the United States to marry their same-sex partners. Understanding that we have provided agencies with additional time for compliance given that overseas federal employees may not have been able to marry immediately following the Supreme Court decision, OPM is issuing a final rule removing references to domestic partners and domestic partnerships from the regulations. Based on the Supreme Court decision and the two additional year's lead time for domestic partners overseas to marry, the current language in the CFR is not needed and may be somewhat confusing. There is no change in coverage for children whose same-sex partners are married.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation programs; cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State Exchanges on the Federal platform. It finalizes changes that provide additional flexibility to States to apply the definition of essential health benefits (EHB) to their markets, enhance the role of States regarding the certification of qualified health plans (QHPs); and provide States with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges, including the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. It includes changes to standards related to Exchanges; the required functions of the SHOPs; actuarial value for stand-alone dental plans; the rate review program; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; exemptions; and other related topics.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Evaluation Study: Impact on Nonquantitative Treatment Limits for Specialty Behavioral Health Care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess frequency, type, and extent of behavioral health (BH) nonquantitative treatment limits (NQTLs) before and after implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). DATA SOURCES: Secondary administrative data for Optum carve-out and carve-in plans. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-tabulations and "two-part" regression models were estimated to assess associations of parity period with NQTLs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Optum provided four proprietary BH databases, including 2008-2013 data for 40 carve-out and 385 carve-in employers from Optum's claims processing databases and 2010 data from interviews conducted by Optum's parity compliance team with 49 carve-out employers. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Preparity, carve-out plans required preauthorization for in-network inpatient/intermediate care; otherwise coverage was denied. Postparity, 73 percent would review later by request and half charged no penalty for late authorization. Outpatient visit authorization requirements virtually disappeared. For carve-out out-of-network inpatient/intermediate care, and for carve-ins, plans changed penalties to match medical service policies, but this did not necessarily lead to fewer requirements or lower penalties. CONCLUSION: After 2011, MHPAEA was associated with the transformation of BH care management, including much less restrictive preauthorization requirements, especially for in-network care provided by carve-out plans.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Removal of Eligible and Ineligible Individuals From Existing Enrollments. Final rule.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule amending Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to provide a process for removal of certain identified individuals who are found not to be eligible as family members from FEHB enrollments. This process would apply to individuals for whom there is a failure to provide adequate documentation of eligibility when requested. This action also amends Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to allow certain eligible family members to be removed from existing self and family or self plus one enrollments.

Out-of-Pocket and Health Care Spending Changes for Patients Using Orally Administered Anticancer Therapy After Adoption of State Parity Laws.

Importance: Oral anticancer medications are increasingly important but costly treatment options for patients with cancer. By early 2017, 43 states and Washington, DC, had passed laws to ensure patients with private insurance enrolled in fully insured health plans pay no more for anticancer medications administered by mouth than anticancer medications administered by infusion. Federal legislation regarding this issue is currently pending. Despite their rapid acceptance, the changes associated with state adoption of oral chemotherapy parity laws have not been described. Objective: To estimate changes in oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and health plan spending associated with oral chemotherapy parity law adoption. Design, Setting, and Participants: Analysis of administrative health plan claims data from 2008-2012 for 3 large nationwide insurers aggregated by the Health Care Cost Institute. Data analysis was first completed in 2015 and updated in 2017. The study population included 63 780 adults living in 1 of 16 states that passed parity laws during the study period and who received anticancer drug treatment for which orally administered treatment options were available. Study analysis used a difference-in-differences approach. Exposures: Time period before and after adoption of state parity laws, controlling for whether the patient was enrolled in a plan subject to parity (fully insured) or not (self-funded, exempt via the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and total health care spending. Results: Of the 63 780 adults aged 18 through 64 years, 51.4% participated in fully insured plans and 48.6% in self-funded plans (57.2% were women; 76.8% were aged 45 to 64 years). The use of oral anticancer medication treatment as a proportion of all anticancer treatment increased from 18% to 22% (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; P = .34) comparing months before vs after parity. In plans subject to parity laws, the proportion of prescription fills for orally administered therapy without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0%, more than double the increase (12.3%-18.0%) in plans not subject to parity (P < .001). The proportion of patients with out-of-pocket spending of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% compared with a slight decline from 12.0% to 11.7% in plans not subject to parity (P = .004). In plans subject to parity laws, estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decreased by $19.44 at the 25th percentile, by $32.13 at the 50th percentile, and by $10.83 at the 75th percentile but increased at the 90th ($37.19) and 95th ($143.25) percentiles after parity (all P < .001, controlling for changes in plans not subject to parity). Parity laws did not increase 6-month total spending for users of any anticancer therapy or for users of oral anticancer therapy alone. Conclusions and Relevance: While oral chemotherapy parity laws modestly improved financial protection for many patients without increasing total health care spending, these laws alone may be insufficient to ensure that patients are protected from high out-of-pocket medication costs.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Evaluation Study: Impact on Mental Health Financial Requirements among Commercial "Carve-In" Plans.

OBJECTIVE: Did mental health cost-sharing decrease following implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? DATA SOURCE: Specialty mental health copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles, 2008-2013, were obtained from benefits databases for "carve-in" plans from a national commercial managed behavioral health organization. STUDY DESIGN: Bivariate and regression-adjusted analyses compare the probability of use and (conditional) level of cost-sharing pre- and postparity. An interaction term is added to compare differential levels of pre- and postparity cost-sharing changes for plans that were and were not already at parity pre-MHPAEA. FINDINGS: Controlling for employer/plan characteristics, MHPAEA is associated with higher intermediate care copayments ($15.9) but lower outpatient ($2.6) copayments among in-network-only plans. Among plans with in- and out-of-network benefits, MHPAEA is associated with lower inpatient ($23.2) and outpatient ($2.5) copayments, but increases in inpatient and intermediate in-network and out-of-network coinsurance (about 1 percentage point). Among the few plans not at parity pre-MHPAEA, changes in use and level of cost-sharing associated with MHPAEA were more dramatic. CONCLUSION: Mixed evidence that MHPAEA led to more generous mental health benefits may stem from the finding that many plans were already at parity pre-MHPAEA. Future policy focus in mental health may shift to slowing growth in cost-sharing for all health services.

Use of work-life balance benefits guaranteed by law in Poland - Do size of the enterprise and gender matter?

BACKGROUND: The paper is aimed at indicating the similarities and differences in use of benefits supporting work-life balance (WLB) between women and men working in Polish small/medium and large enterprises. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample included 556 workers (311 women, 245 men), aged 20-68 years old employed on the basis of employment contracts for at least a year in Polish enterprises. The respondents completed a questionnaire on the use of benefits guaranteed by the Polish Labour Code, referring to their current workplaces. RESULTS: Women took maternity leaves and returned to the same work position after using childcare leaves more often than men. Men took leaves on demand more often than women. Our results also showed that in comparison to women working in smaller enterprises, those working in large enterprises were more likely to use almost all the analyzed WLB benefits - paid days off to take care of others, educational leaves, leaves on demand, maternity leaves and return to the same work position after childcare leave, reduction of business trips when pregnant or having young children and breastfeeding breaks. The size of enterprise, however, did not differentiate the take-up of benefits among the studied men. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis brought unexpected results on the lack of common availability of the WLB benefits guaranteed by the law in the case of employees who worked on the basis of employment contracts. We also found that women used most of child rearing benefits guaranteed by the law more often than men, which might reflect still a traditional division of child care responsibilities in Poland. Med Pr 2017;68(5):575-581.

Door Is Open for HRAs to Make a Comeback.

For four years, businesses that wanted to reimburse employees for their health insurance premiums rather than buying their coverage for them were told that that was no longer allowed under the ACA. But the health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) is back, brought back to life by provisions tucked into last year's 21st Century Cure Act.

The Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Insurance Is Not Regressive-But What Is It?

Conventional wisdom says that the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is "regressive and therefore unfair." Yet, by the standard definition of regressive tax policy, the conventional view is almost certainly false. It confuses the absolute size of the tax exclusion with its proportional effect on income. The error results from paying attention only to the marginal tax rate applied to ESI benefits as a portion of income and ignoring the fact that benefits are normally a much larger share of income for people with lower wages. This article explains the difference and then considers other distributional effects of ESI. It suggests that ESI-for those who receive it-further redistributes toward those with lesser means or greater need. The most evident effect is by need, favoring employees with families over those without. Yet there is good reason to believe there is also a redistribution by income, with the package of wages plus benefits being less unequal than wages alone would be. Therefore reformers should be much more careful before criticizing either ESI or its subsidy through the tax code as "unfair," especially as the likelihood of enacting something better in the United States seems quite low.