Age Discrimination in Employment Act; retiree health benefits. Final rule

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is publishing this final rule so that employers may create, adopt, and maintain a wide range of retiree health plan designs, such as Medicare bridge plans and Medicare wrap-around plans, without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). To address concerns that the ADEA may be construed to create an incentive for employers to eliminate or reduce retiree health benefits, EEOC is creating a narrow exemption from the prohibitions of the ADEA for the practice of coordinating employer-sponsored retiree health benefits with eligibility for Medicare or a comparable State health benefits program. The rule does not otherwise affect an employer's ability to offer health or other employment benefits to retirees, consistent with the law.     

Retiree medical benefit plans and the impact of the bankruptcy filing of LTV Corp.

In the past two decades, post-retirement medical benefit programs have become a significant feature in the benefits packages of many employers. Soaring medical costs and decreasing work forces have made it increasingly difficult for employers to pay for these programs, while at the same time, Congress has made it more difficult for employers to prefund them. The critical level of unfunded retiree medical liability faced by many companies was brought to prominence when LTV Corp., the nation's second largest steel producer, filed for bankruptcy reorganization and promptly terminated its retiree medical benefit plan.     

Retiree health and welfare benefits: controversy over their duration

As the cost of providing health-care benefits skyrockets, employers have begun to reduce or even to terminate health-care and life insurance benefits for retirees, often with little awareness of the possible repercussions. Retiree groups and unions have countered these actions with claims based on such theories as the "status benefits" argument--that retirement benefits should be viewed as earned compensation for years of service--or the "vested rights" view--that retirement rights may not be altered without the pensioner's consent. Crucial to these conflicts are the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Case law indicates that employers can never feel themselves fully protected even if the agreement contains provisions explicitly stating the benefits' scope and duration. The authors demonstrate this point in their review of recent retiree benefits cases. They then explore in detail the problem of contract and document ambiguity, and offer guidelines for ascertaining intent. They conclude with a discussion of strategies for litigating retiree benefits cases.     

Expanding health insurance coverage: who will pay?

Recent discussions on extending health insurance to the more than thirty million uninsured Americans have focused on two strategies: expanding the Medicaid program and mandating that employers sponsor coverage for their employees. This analysis, using a microsimulation model of the U.S. health care financing system, suggests that these two options would result in very different distributions of financial burden. Employer-sponsored coverage is financed in a highly regressive fashion, in contrast to the Medicaid program, which is proportional to income. Furthermore, the burden of paying for health care under Medicaid varies little among generations, whereas the cost of employer-sponsored care is lowest in households headed by persons over sixty-five years old. Low health status populations do not pay disproportionately higher taxes or premiums to finance either the Medicaid program or employer-sponsored coverage. Their incomes, however, are more effectively protected by Medicaid, because it offers more comprehensive benefits.     

The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 and its impact on employer-sponsored retiree medical plans.

The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MECCA) significantly enlarges the scope of federally funded health care benefits for elderly Americans. Since Medicare's inception in 1965, several inadequacies have become apparent, especially the absence of coverage for catastrophic illnesses. Now MECCA inhibits the potential financial ruin of elderly Americans faced with overwhelming, extended medical costs. The Act is budget-neutral and can reduce employers' Social Security payroll tax costs. However, the costs and complications of the maintenance-of-effort provision refunds and potential employee resistance to raised Medicare premiums, which could force some beneficiaries to cancel Part B participation and increase reliance on employer-sponsored plans, do pose problems for employers. Options and alternatives to these new opportunities and concerns are detailed herein.     

Reporting by multiple employer welfare arrangements and certain other entities that offer or provide coverage for medical care to the employees of two or more employers. Final rule

This document contains a final rule governing certain reporting requirements under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) and certain other entities that offer or provide coverage for medical care to the employees of two or more employers. The final rule generally requires the administrator of a MEWA, and certain other entities, to file a form with the Secretary of Labor for the purpose of determining whether the requirements of certain recent health care laws are being met.     

The struggle over retiree medical benefits: who's on top?

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of litigation addressing an employer's right to unilaterally amend or terminate medical benefits provided to retirees. The sheer volume of these cases and the variety of facts and legal theories have combined to obscure the patterns and trends that actually are emerging from this litigation. This article will describe the context of the struggle over retiree benefits and discuss those leading decisions in which the federal courts of appeals have established their rules for deciding retiree benefits cases.     

ERISA, agency costs, and the future of health care in the United States

Because so many Americans receive health insurance through their employers, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 plays a dominant role in the delivery of health care in the United States. The ERISA system enables employers and insurers to save money by providing inadequate health care to employees, thereby creating incentives for these agents to act contrary to the interests of their principals. Such agency costs play a significant role in the current health care crisis and require attention when considering reform. We evaluate the two major health care reform movements by exploring the extent to which each reduces agency costs. We find that agency cost analysis clarifies the benefits, limits, and uncertainties of each approach.     

Congress advances on health care reform: one step at a time

In adopting the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Congress made a series of small but significant steps toward improving access to health care benefits. The Act's centerpiece is its new requirements for group health plans and for the health insurance industry for assuring portability, access, and renewability of health insurance coverage. Of nearly equal importance is the pilot program established for testing the viability of medical savings accounts. Other health-related changes include adjustments in the rules governing duplication and coordinating of Medicare-related plans, recommendations with respect to privacy of health information of employees, an increase in the deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals, and permission for unemployed persons to make withdrawals from IRAs and other qualified plans for certain medical services' costs. This article summarizes these and other key provisions of HIPAA.     

Modernizing Medicaid eligibility criteria for children with significant disabilities: moving from a disabling to an enabling paradigm

Children with significant disabilities may qualify for Medicaid benefits, regardless of household income, if their state elects to offer the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) option. However, a significant number of children with serious medical problems presently are being denied eligibility for, or terminated from, this Medicaid program. This Article describes the ways in which the existing health insurance system inadequately meets the needs of children with significant disabilities, recounts the history and development of the TEFRA Medicaid coverage option, and analyzes the eligibility criteria used by the various states. It proceeds to consider how disability should be legally defined in the health care context and proposes reforms to modernize the eligibility standards so that these benefits can be more effectively, efficiently, and fairly allocated. To accomplish this goal, the federal statute and regulation that define disability, as well as corresponding state laws, must be reformed so that the law can keep pace with advances in modern medical science, and people with disabilities are not, in effect, penalized for receiving currently accepted preventative care that maintains health but will never cure the underlying disease.     

Why requiring employers to provide health insurance is a bad idea

There is mounting pressure at the federal (and state) level to require employers to provide health insurance to their employees. However, two quite different groups of workers could be affected by such a mandate. In addition, there are at least five major problems with requiring employers to provide health insurance. Chief among these is the further fracturing of the insurance market, so that the spreading of risk will be reduced, and only the young and healthy will be offered insurance at relatively low premiums. We should be designing a health insurance system that has both universal coverage and a cost-containment structure. Toward this end, we need to tackle issues that transcend alternative methods of financing health care in the U.S.     

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); enhancement of dental benefits under the TRICARE retiree dental program. Office of the Secretary, DoD. Interim final rule with request for comments

This interim final rule implements section 704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, to allow additional benefits under the retiree dental insurance plan for Uniformed Services retirees and their family members that may be comparable to those under the Dependents Dental Program. The Department is publishing this rule as an interim final rule in order to comply timely with the desire of Congress to meet the needs of retirees for additional dental coverage. Public comments are invited and will be considered for possible revisions to this rule at the time of publication of the final rule.     

TRICARE; sub-acute care program; uniform skilled nursing facility benefit; home health care benefit; adopting Medicare payment methods for skilled nursing facilities and home health care providers. Final rule

This rule partially implements the TRICARE "sub-acute and long-term care program reform" enacted by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, specifically: Establishment of "an effective, efficient, and integrated sub-acute care benefits program," with skilled nursing facility (SNF) and home health care benefits modeled after those of the Medicare program; adoption of Medicare payment methods for skilled nursing facility, home health care, and certain other institutional health care providers; adoption of Medicare rules on balance billing of beneficiaries, prohibiting it by institutional providers and limiting it by non-institutional providers; and change in the statutory exclusion of coverage for custodial and domiciliary care.     

Biological monitoring: the employer's dilemma

The industrial workplace contains many potential health hazards that not only can cause great harm to workers, but also can destroy the employers' economic stability. Often these hazards are documented and dealth with, but frequently they are unknown. When health-conscious employers monitor the physical well-being of their employees in an effort to avoid the terrible personal and economic costs these hazards can produce, they may be supplying their employees with the documentation necessary to recover financially for their industrial illnesses. This Article analyzes this dilemma confronting employers. It describes the many factors employers must consider when deciding whether to institute a monitoring process that takes full advantage of technological developments in medical care. The Article suggests an approach employers may take until some of the disincentives surrounding the implementation of monitoring are removed.     

The slippery slope of health care finance: business interests and hospital reimbursement in Massachusetts

In 1988 Massachusetts enacted a bill, popularly known as Health Care for All, which promised that by 1992 every Massachusetts resident would have available affordable insurance for basic medical expenses. This legislation was one of a series of laws enacted over a period of six years which progressively improved access to care for the uninsured. The policy process which led to the enactment of these laws was strongly influenced by the interests of large employers. This article describes the series of access-expanding hospital reimbursement changes in Massachusetts in the 1980s and traces the connection between the involvement of business interests in the policy process and the outcomes that occurred; that is, it follows the slide of employers down the slippery slope of health care finance. The article also describes a potential implementation strategy for the Health Care for All legislation.     

Why we must end insurance discrimination against mental health care

In this Policy Essay, Representative Patrick Kennedy argues that insurance discrimination against those suffering from mental illness constitutes a serious and often overlooked deficiency of the modern American health care system. While the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was an important step toward resolutions of this issue, many loopholes remain that allow insurance companies to deny much-needed coverage to those suffering from such illnesses. This Essay details how improving access to health insurance for the mentally ill is not only socially beneficial, but also economically sound; the cost of instituting mental health parity is far outweighed by the costs that employers bear because of the reduced productivity of untreated mental illness sufferers. Representative Kennedy recommends that these problems may be addressed by additional mental health policy legislation--specifically, the proposed Paul Wellstone Act.     

Why Medical Child Support is Important—and Complex

Courts resolving child support cases involving separated, divorced, and non‐marital children are charged with defining responsibility for health care coverage for the children under that order. This article explores historical and current medical child support requirements under Title IV‐D of the Social Security Act—the national child support enforcement (“IV‐D”) program. It analyzes legal requirements and policy recommendations, and provides a practical tool judges may use to determine whether health care coverage available to either or both parents is appropriate—that is, comprehensive, accessible, and affordable.     

State Children's Health Insurance Program; eligibility for prenatal care and other health services for unborn children. Final rule

In order to provide prenatal care and other health services, this final rule revises the definition of "child" under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to clarify that an unborn child may be considered a "targeted low-income child" by the State and therefore eligible for SCHIP if other applicable State eligibility requirements are met. Under this definition, the State may elect to extend eligibility to unborn children for health benefits coverage, including prenatal care and delivery, consistent with SCHIP requirements.