SHARE

FEATURED STORY May 31, 2022

Employers Explore Abortion Coverage Continuation

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

While the United States awaits the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which may overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal standard for abortion access, some states are considering setting their own standards that would ban or protect the medical procedure. This state-by-state rulemaking will cause some difficulty for employer plans. 

IN DEPTH


Some employers are concerned that their employees may not be able to access abortion services where they live; because of this, employers have taken action to support abortion access for their workers or dependents who live in states that ban these services. In addition to the cost of abortion care, individuals may be faced with travel expenses, which could present a sizeable financial barrier, particularly for lower-wage workers. Accordingly, employers are adding travel costs for medical services if such services are legally prohibited in the jurisdiction where the individual resides. Note this could also cover transgender surgeries or any other services a state may ban in the future.

Apple, Citigroup, Mastercard, Starbucks and Microsoft are among the growing number of large companies that have publicly announced coverage of travel costs for abortions.

Most employers who offer this benefit will do so through their existing employee medical plan.  Including this benefit as part of the medical plan might help mitigate worker privacy concerns since health plans are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Other employers have set up a separate fund outside of their medical plan from which workers may request reimbursement for such expenses. Typically, the employer would administer the latter, creating possible privacy angst for both the employer and the employee.

The first thing an employer considering adding travel reimbursement to their health plan should do is contact their medical plan claims administrator to determine if the claims administrator will administer the travel benefit.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Most large employers have self-funded health plans, meaning they are not regulated by states and, therefore, state laws restricting abortion coverage in fully insured plans do not apply to these plans. Furthermore, state anti-abortion rules regulate providers who seek abortions within the state. It would be a legal stretch for a state to regulate a citizen who sought health services that are legal in another state. Likewise, an employer who reimburses travel to another state for access to care that is legal in the destination state should also be beyond such prohibition statutes.

That said, shortly after Citigroup made its announcement that they would cover travel costs to obtain an abortion, a Texas state legislator accused the company of violating its state law that bans abortion after six weeks and which includes civil penalties for anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion outside of that timeframe. In the US House of Representatives and Senate, Republican lawmakers are also advocating for financial penalties for companies that cover workers' travel costs to obtain an abortion.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

Employers trying to extend additional benefits to help workers access abortion care may want to review their health plan coverage, including deductible levels, to make these benefits meaningful to lower-wage workers. Such travel expenses would be considered "disqualifying coverage" if paid prior to an individual satisfying their high-deductible health plan annual deductible—thus making that individual ineligible for contributions to a Health Savings Account.

Employers interested in continuing abortion coverage despite state restrictions should keep abreast of any federal and state developments, including any potential new guidance or legislation that may emerge. 

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

Proposals to Reform the UK Data Protection Regime

By Sharon Lamb McDermott Will & Emery June 15 , 2022

On 10 May 2022 and as part of the Queen’s speech, which sets out the programme of legislation for the forthcoming parliamentary session, the government announced proposals to table a Data Reform Bill (the Bill) to reform the UK’s data protection regime and to diverge from European GDPR1. This follows the consultation by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) consultation released last September.

Preparing for the Demise of Roe v. Wade and the Criminalization of Abortion in Some US States: Practical Considerations for a Post-Roe World

By David Quinn Gacioch McDermott Will & Emery June 14 , 2022

Sometime in the next several weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States will issue its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs). Based on the draft majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito that was leaked to Politico in early May, there is a significant chance that the Court will overrule Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Casey) by holding that there is no federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion and leaving individual states free to substantially restrict abortion or prohibit abortion altogether.

New SEC Rule Mandates Electronic Filing of Form 144s and "Glossy" Annual Reports

By Eric Orsic McDermott Will & Emery June 10 , 2022

On June 3, 2022, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments to Rule 101 of Regulation S-T that eliminate the option for issuers and filing persons to file a number of forms in paper format. The amendments mandate that issuers and filing persons electronically submit the following forms on EDGAR: Form 144 for sales of securities of issuers subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act

More From Health Care

Workplace Safety Review: Episode 26 | Interview with Rod Harvey

By Michael T. Taylor Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

In this episode, Mike Taylor and Adam Roseman talk to Rod Harvey, Director of Industrial Hygiene and Field Services for RHP Risk Management Inc.

In Viking River Cruises, US Supreme Court Sides With Employers: Individual PAGA Claims Are Arbitrable - For Now

By Timothy Long Greenberg Traurig June 17 , 2022

In a victory for California employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of arbitration agreements that waive an employee’s right to bring a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim on a representative basis – requiring such claims be brought on an individual basis in arbitration. The Court further held that “PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate [individual arbitration] proceeding.”

Proposals to Reform the UK Data Protection Regime

By Sharon Lamb McDermott Will & Emery June 15 , 2022

On 10 May 2022 and as part of the Queen’s speech, which sets out the programme of legislation for the forthcoming parliamentary session, the government announced proposals to table a Data Reform Bill (the Bill) to reform the UK’s data protection regime and to diverge from European GDPR1. This follows the consultation by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) consultation released last September.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...