Tag: Federal

  • Federal Agencies Propose Major Changes to Mental Health Parity Regulations – CUPA-HR

    Federal Agencies Propose Major Changes to Mental Health Parity Regulations – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 11, 2023

    This blog post was contributed by Elena Lynett, JD, senior vice president at Segal, a CUPA-HR Mary Ann Wersch Premier Partner.

    Institutions generally provide comprehensive mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits as part of their commitment to creating a safe and nurturing campus. However, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires that institutions providing MH/SUD benefits ensure parity in coverage between the MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury recently proposed major changes to the MHPAEA regulations for group health plan sponsors and insurers.

    The proposed changes address nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) — a term which references a wide range of medical management strategies and network administrative practices that may impact the scope or duration of MH/SUD benefits. Examples of NQTLs include prior or ongoing authorization requirements, formulary design for prescription drugs, and exclusions of specific treatments for certain conditions.

    If government agencies issue a final rule similar to the proposal, plans will face additional data collection, evaluation, compliance and administrative requirements. The most significant proposed changes are:

    • The “predominant/substantially all” testing that currently applies to financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations under MHPAEA would apply as a threshold test for any NQTL;
    • New data collection requirements, including denial rates and utilization information;
    • A new “meaningful benefits” standard for MH/SUD benefits;
    • Detailed requirements regarding the documented comparative analysis that plans must have for each applicable NQTL;
    • Introduction of a category of NQTLs related to network composition and new rules aimed at creating parity in medical/surgical and MH/SUD networks;
    • Prohibition on separate NQTLs for MH/SUD;
    • For plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a requirement that a named fiduciary would have to review and certify documented comparative analysis as complying with MHPAEA; and
    • For non-federal governmental plans, sunset of the ability to opt out of compliance with the MHPAEA rules.

    For more information on the proposed rules, see Segal’s August 1, 2023 insight.

    The deadline to comment on the proposed rules is October 17, 2023. If interested, your institution may file comments here. CUPA-HR will be filing comments with other associations representing higher education and plan sponsors. As proposed, plans could be expected to comply as early as the first day of any plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2025.



    Source link

  • Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

    Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 24, 2023

    Over the past year, lawmakers have taken an increased interest in establishing and expanding upon benefits and protections for paid leave and pregnant workers. As a result, Congress passed two bills granting workplace protections to pregnant and nursing mothers at the end of 2022, while  considering new federal proposals for paid family and medical leave. This post details some of the recent actions taken by lawmakers toward a federal paid-leave policy, as well as updates from federal agencies on the enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act.

    Bipartisan Working Group on Paid Leave

    In April, a group of bipartisan lawmakers in the House of Representatives established the Bipartisan Paid Family Leave Working Group, the goal of which “is to create a bipartisan paid family leave policy that supports American families and businesses.” The group consists of three Republicans — Reps. Stephanie Bice (R-OK), Julia Letlow (R-LA) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) — and three Democrats — Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Colin Allred (D-TX) and Haley Stevens (D-MI).

    In a letter establishing the working group, the lawmakers expressed their intention to explore both state and federal policies that already exist with the goal of creating an established paid-leave policy. The letter discusses both the successes and areas to improve of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it states that there is a bipartisan consensus that paid leave is an issue that needs to become law.

    FAMILY Act

    On May 17, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) reintroduced the FAMILY Act, which would grant up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees at companies of all sizes through funds collected by payroll taxes paid by both employees and employers. The FAMILY Act was first introduced in 2013, but the most recent bill expands upon previous text by creating a progressive scale for wage replacement during the time off. Under the bill, the lowest paid workers would be eligible to receive up to 85 percent of their wages during their time off, while the average full-time worker would receive approximately two-thirds of their wages. Additionally, the bill extends coverage to include time off taken to address personal incidents with domestic violence, stalking and/or sexual assault.

    While most Democrats have championed the FAMILY Act as their preferred proposal for paid leave, the bill is unlikely to gain Republican support and will therefore not pass the House during this Congress. Republicans have previously opposed the bill, arguing against the proposed tax increases as well as potential burdens employers may face as a result of a paid-leave mandate. Instead, Republicans who have shown interest in advancing paid-leave policies have considered programs allowing individuals to borrow from their Social Security funds, incentivizing the creation of a private insurance system for leave pay, and providing tax credits to pay for time off.

    PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

    On May 18, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) with enforcement information and public guidance for the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. The law went into effect on April 28, after being included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 year-end legislation to fund the federal government.

    As a reminder, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds on existing protections in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Provision by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. Specifically, the bill ensures reasonable time and space for working individuals to pump in their workplaces as well as remedies for employer violations of the act.

    The FAB provides details on the requirements for reasonable space and break time, compensation, and employer posting of FLSA requirements as provided under the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. Employers and field staff alike may use the FAB document as a resource to understand compliance with the act as enforced by WHD.

    Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    Alongside the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the PWFA was also signed into law under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The effective date of the PWFA is June 27, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was expected to issue proposed regulations on how best to govern and enforce the PWFA by then.

    As of May, however, the EEOC has yet to release any proposed regulations, and it seems likely that the agency will not be able to issue a proposed rule by the June 27 date. The commission currently has two Democratic and two Republican commissioners, and given the need for a majority of commissioners to vote to advance a rulemaking, the agency is unable to move proposed rules forward because commissioners are split along party lines. Through the legislation, Congress has allowed the EEOC through the end of 2023 to finalize a rulemaking on the PWFA, which may or may not be achieved,  depending on whether the Senate is able to confirm Kalpana Kotagal as the third Democratic appointee on the commission. In lieu of the proposed rulemaking, the EEOC has issued guidance on the law through an FAQ webpage addressing the protections granted under the law, which stakeholders may use as they wait for the official regulations.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor any developments related to these proposals and laws and will keep members apprised of any policy updates related to paid leave and protections for pregnant and nursing workers.



    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks Department of Education’s Title IX Guidance – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judge Blocks Department of Education’s Title IX Guidance – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | July 27, 2022

    On July 15, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Department of Education’s Title IX guidance that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Specifically, the ruling blocks enforcement of a June 2021 Notice of Interpretation issued by the department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in light of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and President Biden’s Executive Order, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”

    Twenty Republican-controlled states, led by their attorneys general, were listed as plaintiffs on the case, arguing that the department’s guidance should not be enforced by the agency as it did not go through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process and is not codified law. They claimed that the department’s enforcement of the guidance also puts states at risk of losing significant federal funding if they do not comply with the guidance. The Eastern District of Tennessee judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing the preliminary injunction while stating that the guidance interferes with states’ abilities to enforce their own laws that prohibit transgender students from participating on sports teams or using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

    As it currently stands, the injunction applies only to the 20 states listed as plaintiffs in the case, potentially impacting the policies of colleges and universities in those states. Notably, the injunction does not impact the recently issued Title IX proposed regulations that are currently undergoing a 60-day notice-and-comment period. If the Title IX regulations are codified into law, however, they may face similar legal challenges.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this issue and keep members apprised of any developments related to Title IX.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 21, 2022

    On February 17, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining plans to impose new HR-related conditions on USDA contracts. If finalized, the rule would require federal contractors on projects procured by the USDA to certify their compliance with dozens of federal and state labor laws and executive orders. The proposal mirrors similar “blacklisting” regulations pursued by the USDA during the Obama administration.

    The USDA provided only 32 days for stakeholders to submit comments on the proposal. CUPA-HR, along with several other higher education associations, filed an extension request with the department asking for an additional 90 days to “evaluate the NPRM’s impact on [members’] research missions and collect the information needed in order to provide thoughtful and accurate input to the USDA.” CUPA-HR plans to file comments on the proposal as well.

    The new proposed rulemaking amends the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) to require federal contractors on USDA supply and service projects that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold to certify that they and their subcontractors and suppliers are “in compliance with” 15 federal labor laws, their state equivalents and executive orders. This includes, but is not limited to:

    • Fair Labor Standards Act;
    • Occupational Safety and Health Act;
    • National Labor Relations Act;
    • Service Contract Act;
    • Davis-Bacon Act;
    • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act;
    • Americans with Disabilities Act;
    • Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and
    • Family and Medical Leave Act.

    Additionally, federal contractors submitting offers for a project would be required to disclose to the USDA previous violations and certify they and their subcontractors “are in compliance with” any required corrective actions for those violations. They would also be required to alert USDA to any future adjudications of non-compliance.

    In 2011, the USDA tried to implement a similar policy via a Direct Final Rule and NPRM, but was forced to withdraw both due to stakeholder pushback. CUPA-HR filed comments with the Society for Human Resource Management calling the rules arbitrary and capricious. Our comments also criticized the rules for not adequately clarifying how contractors were expected to comply with the changes and for imposing severe penalties. Additionally, CUPA-HR joined comments filed by the American Council on Education and several other higher education associations that argued the USDA’s rules “impose[d] an unmanageable compliance burden and uncertain compliance risk for colleges and universities that conduct agricultural research under contracts with the [USDA].”

    Additionally, the Obama administration issued an executive order in July 2014 implementing a similar government-wide policy. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council and the Department of Labor issued regulations and guidance, respectively, implementing the order, but they were blocked by a federal judge in October 2016 for violating the First Amendment and due process rights. Congress also passed a Congressional Review Act challenge to the executive order in 2017, permanently withdrawing the executive order and barring the FAR Council from issuing any substantially similar regulations.

    Unlike past proposals, this time the USDA has stated that the certifications will be subject to the False Claims Act (FCA), which provides for substantially increased liability. The FCA provides for treble damages and penalties and allows for private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits). Qui tam litigants receive a portion of the government’s recovery. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the awards to qui tam litigants in FCA suits topped $238 million in 2021. The same DOJ statistics show qui tam suits were the majority of FCA claims, with the government filing 203 new suits under FCA in 2021 compared to 598 qui tam suits in the same year.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this issue closely.



    Source link

  • Federal Court Reinstates OSHA Vaccination and Testing ETS – CUPA-HR

    Federal Court Reinstates OSHA Vaccination and Testing ETS – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 20, 2021

    On December 17, the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the 5th Circuit Court’s emergency motion to stay the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), paving the way for OSHA to continue implementing and enforcing the vaccination and testing requirements for covered employers with 100 or more employees.

    The ETS requires covered employers and employees to be fully vaccinated or in compliance with testing requirements by January 4, 2022. The stay, which was granted in November, temporarily halted OSHA from implementing and enforcing the vaccination and testing requirements. While the stay was in place, it was unclear whether or not OSHA would be able to fully implement the ETS by January 4 or any time after.

    With the recent decision from the 6th Circuit Court, OSHA now plans to implement the ETS as quickly as possible. To account for the timing uncertainty created by the stay, however, OSHA also has announced that it will not issue non-compliance citations for any of the requirements of the ETS before January 10, 2022, and it will not issue non-compliance citations specifically for the ETS’s testing requirements until February 9, 2022, “so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.” OSHA has also vowed to provide compliance assistance to help employers navigate these new requirements and timelines.

    Shortly after the 6th Circuit’s order, a number of groups challenging the ETS filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the stay. Meanwhile, the federal contractor vaccine mandate and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) healthcare worker vaccine mandate remain stayed as litigation continues in several federal courts.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any future legal challenges and decisions made on the OSHA ETS, federal contractor vaccine mandate, and healthcare worker vaccine mandate.



    Source link

  • DOL Issues Final Rule to Increase Federal Contractor Minimum Wage – CUPA-HR

    DOL Issues Final Rule to Increase Federal Contractor Minimum Wage – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 13, 2021

    On November 24, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a final rule implementing President Biden’s Executive Order 14026 (EO), “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” The rule increases the minimum wage for federal government contractors for workers who work on or in connection with a covered federal contract to $15 per hour beginning January 30, 2022, and requires the secretary of labor to annually review and determine the minimum wage amount beginning January 1, 2023.

    As stated above, the final rule establishes standards and procedures for implementing and enforcing the minimum wage protections of Executive Order 14026. Starting January 30, 2022, all agencies will need to include a $15 minimum wage in new contracts, new solicitations, extensions or renewals of an existing contract, and exercises of an option on an existing contract. Under the EO and final rule, contracts with solicitations issued before January 30, 2022, and entered into, on or between January 30 and March 30, 2022 will be exempt from the wage. If such a contract is subsequently extended or renewed or an option is exercised under the contract, the $15 minimum wage will apply.

    Covered Contracts

    According to the EO and as finalized in the rule, the $15 minimum wage requirement only applies to the following contracts:

    • Procurement contracts for services or construction;
    • Contracts for services covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA);
    • Contracts for concessions; and
    • Contracts “entered into with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.”

    The new minimum wage clause will NOT need to be included in:

    • Federal grants;
    • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act;
    • Procurement contracts for construction that are excluded from coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA);
    • Contracts for services that are exempt from coverage under the SCA; and
    • Contracts for the manufacturing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment to the Federal Government.

    Covered Workers

    The WHD defines a covered worker in the final rule as “any person engaged in performing work on or in connection with a contract covered by the EO, and whose wages under such contract are governed by the [Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)], the SCA or the DBA, regardless of the contractual relationship alleged to exist between the individual and the employer.” A worker who performs “on” a covered contract is defined as “any worker who directly performs the specific services called for by the contract’s terms,” and a worker who performs “in connection with” a covered contract is defined as “any worker who performs work activities that, although are not the specific services called for by the contract’s terms, are necessary to the performance of those specific services.”

    One exemption to the rule’s minimum wage requirement is provided for FLSA-covered workers performing work “in connection with” covered contracts for less than 20 percent of their working hours in a given workweek.

    The final rule also clarifies that certain employees who are exempt from the minimum wage protections under the FLSA are also not entitled to the $15 minimum wage protection of the EO and final rule. In an FAQ page on the EO and final rule, the WHD provides “learners, apprentices, messengers and full-time students employed under certificates pursuant to FLSA sections 14(a) and (b)” as examples of individuals who are excluded from the EO’s minimum wage requirements.

    Additional Considerations

    As mentioned above, the secretary of labor will be granted authority to annually review and increase the minimum wage beginning January 1, 2023. The minimum wage will be increased by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers to address inflation.

    Additionally, the EO and final rule change compensation for tipped employees working on or in connection with a covered contract. Beginning January 30, 2022, such tipped employees must be paid a wage of at least $10.50 per hour. By January 1, 2024, the tip credit must be eliminated for such employees, and they must earn the same minimum hourly rate that other covered employees are entitled to.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates and resources to aid institutions as the new minimum wage final rule becomes effective.



    Source link