Dept. of Labor Clarifies HIPAA with Compliance Safe Harbor
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.17.07
Enactment of Titles I and IV of HIPAA and subsequent amendments improved access to and coverage by health insurance plans, addressing contentious issues such as hospital stays after childbirth and exceptions to coverage based on preexisting conditions. Intended to affect general health insurance coverage, including employer-based and open-market group or individual plans, the law did not cover certain excepted benefits. Thus, plans technically comprised entirely of “excepted benefits” could find themselves exempt from the requirements of these reforms.
The previous definition of one exception, “supplemental excepted benefits,” included Medicare Supplemental Insurance, TRICARE insurance, and “similar supplemental insurance coverage provided to coverage under a group health plan” if each was a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance. However, concerns over abuse of the vague language of “similar supplemental insurance coverage” has led the Department of Labor to issue clarification.
Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2007-04, issued December 7, 2007, establishes an enforcement safe harbor for supplemental health insurance that will be exempt from Part 7 of ERISA, as implemented through regulations at 29 CFR 2590.732(c)(5)(i)(C). “Similar supplemental insurance” that does not meet the Department of Labor’s following safe harbor standards can now be subject to enforcement action:
(1) Must be a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance..
(2) Supplemental insurance in question must be issued by someone other than the plan’s primary coverage provider. Significantly, if the coverage providers are “part of the same controlled group of corporations or part of the same group of trades or businesses under common control, within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the code” they are effectively the same provider under the requirement.
(3) Supplemental insurance in question must be specifically intended to fill gaps in the primary coverage. This does not include insurance that becomes supplemental solely under a coordination-of-benefits provision.
(4) Cost of the Supplemental insurance in question must not exceed 15% of the primary coverage’s cost (cost is determined in the same way the applicable premium is determined under a COBRA continuation provision).
(5) Supplemental insurance in question must not “differentiate among individuals in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on health factor of the individual” or his or her dependant.
This material is made available for information purposes only, and should not be relied upon to resolve specific legal questions.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
