What is Required Under the New Preventive Health Guidelines?

August 16, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently adopted new preventive care guidelines for women, which will be required to be covered under the PPACA preventive care rules. 

 

These new guidelines have prompted plans to ask questions about exactly what is required under the preventive care rules and when.

What preventive care coverage does PPACA require?

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

PPACA requires nongrandfathered group health plans to cover the following recommended services:

  • Evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF);
  • Immunizations for routine use in children, adolescents, and adults that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC);
  • With respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which is a part of HHS; and
  • With respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the HRSA (these are the new, recently adopted guidelines).

Plans are required to cover these services free of charge, without cost sharing (for example, without imposing copayments or coinsurance). 

More detail on these recommendations can be found at http://www.healthcare.gov/center/regulations/prevention/taskforce.html 

When do these requirements apply?

The requirement to cover these preventive care services applies to plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (January 1, 2011 for calendar year plans).  These requirements do not apply to grandfathered plans.

What do the new, recently adopted guidelines require?

On August 1, 2011, the Secretary of HHS announced new guidelines for women's preventive services (as recommended by the Institutes of Medicine).  See www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines /.  The new guidelines require coverage in the following categories:

  • Well-woman visits;
  • Screening for gestational diabetes;
  • HPV testing;
  • Counseling for STD infections;
  • Counseling and screening fro HIV;
  • Contraceptive methods and counseling (with an exemption for certain religious employers);
  • Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
  • Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence. 

When must plans incorporate the recently adopted guidelines into coverage?

The original preventive care regulation provided, for any new recommendations or guidelines that are adopted, a plan must provide coverage for plan years beginning on or after the date that is one year after the applicable recommendation or guideline is issued.   

Since the new women's preventive care guidelines were adopted August 1, 2011, health plans (other than grandfathered plans), must start offering this coverage for plan years that begin on or after August 1, 2012 (January 1, 2013 for calendar year plans). 

===========================================================

Got a health-care reform question?  You can ask YOUR health-care reform legislation question online at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/second_opinions  

You can find a handy list of Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and their effective dates at http://www.groom.com/HCR-Chart.html   

Contributors:

Christy Tinnes is a Principal in the Health & Welfare Group of Groom Law Group in Washington, D.C.  She is involved in all aspects of health and welfare plans, including ERISA, HIPAA portability, HIPAA privacy, COBRA, and Medicare.  She represents employers designing health plans as well as insurers designing new products.  Most recently, she has been extensively involved in the insurance market reform and employer mandate provisions of the health-care reform legislation.

Brigen Winters is a Principal at Groom Law Group, Chartered, where he co-chairs the firm's Policy and Legislation group. He counsels plan sponsors, insurers, and other financial institutions regarding health and welfare, executive compensation, and tax-qualified arrangements, and advises clients on legislative and regulatory matters, with a particular focus on the recently enacted health-reform legislation.

PLEASE NOTE:  This feature is intended to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. 

SEC Sues Broker for Defrauding Wisconsin School Districts

August 16, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged St. Louis-based brokerage firm Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and a former senior executive with defrauding five Wisconsin school districts by selling them unsuitably risky and complex investments funded largely with borrowed money.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Milwaukee, the SEC alleges that Stifel and Senior Vice President David W. Noack created a proprietary program to help the school districts fund retiree benefits by investing in notes linked to the performance of synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The school districts established trusts that invested $200 million in three transactions from June to December 2006, paid for largely with borrowed funds. 

According to an SEC announcement, Stifel and Noack misrepresented the risk of the investments and failed to disclose material facts to the school districts. In the end, the investments were a complete failure, but generated significant fees for Stifel and Noack.  

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The five school districts are Kenosha Unified School District No. 1, Kimberly Area School District, School District of Waukesha, West Allis-West Milwaukee School District, and School District of Whitefish Bay. The SEC alleges that Stifel and Noack made sweeping assurances to the school districts, misrepresenting that it would take “15 Enrons” — a catastrophic, overnight collapse — for the investments to fail. They also misrepresented that 30 of the 105 companies in the portfolio would have to default and that 100 of the top 800 companies in the world would have to fail before the school districts would suffer a loss of their principal.   

The SEC alleges that among material facts that Stifel and Noack failed to disclose were the portfolio in the first transaction performing poorly from the outset, credit rating agencies placing 10% of the portfolio on negative watch within 36 days of closing, and certain CDO providers expressing concerns about the risks of Stifel’s proprietary program and declining to participate in it.  

According to the SEC’s complaint, Stifel and Noack sold the school districts an unsuitable product that did not meet their investment needs. The school districts had no prior experience with investing in CDOs and related instruments. Stifel and Noack knew that the school districts lacked the requisite sophistication and experience to independently evaluate the risks of the investment, and knew that the school districts relied on Stifel and Noack’s recommendations. The school districts contributed $37.3 million toward the $200 million investment and borrowed the remaining $162.7 million.   

The SEC alleges that the heavy use of leverage and the structure of the synthetic CDOs exposed the school districts to a heightened risk of catastrophic loss. The investments steadily declined in value in 2007 and 2008 as the CDO portfolios suffered a series of downgrades. By 2010, the school districts learned that the second and third investments were a complete loss and that the lender had seized all of the trusts’ assets. The school districts suffered a complete loss of their investment and suffered credit rating downgrades for failing to provide additional funds to the trusts they established.

«