Final Health Coverage Portability Regulations Clarify Preexisting Condition Exclusion Requirements
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.07.05
By Robyn Whipple Diaz
In 1996, Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Pub. L. No. 104-191), which, among other things, improved portability of group health plan coverage. On December 30, 2004 the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury (“the agencies”) jointly issued final regulations for health coverage portability. 69 FR 78719. The final regulations replaced interim final regulations issued in April 1997 (62 FR 16894) and clarified in December 1997 (62 FR 67688). The final regulations apply to group health plans for plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2005.
The agencies commented that the final regulations do not significantly change the framework of the interim rule issued in April 1997. Rather, the final regulations “implement changes to improve the portability of health coverage while seeking to minimize burdens on group health plans and group health insurance issuers.” Among the more significant changes to the interim rule are:
- Group health plans and group health insurance issuers must implement written procedures that can be used by individuals to request certificates of coverage.
- Group health plans and group health insurance issuers must include with certificates of creditable coverage an educational statement on HIPAA portability rights. Model language is set forth in the final regulation.
- General notices of preexisting conditions must include information on the length of the plan's look-back period, the maximum preexisting condition exclusion period under the plan, and the address or telephone number of a person to contact to obtain additional information regarding preexisting condition exclusions. The final regulation includes model language that group health plans and group health insurance issuers may use to satisfy these requirements.
- Certain “plan benefit restrictions” operate as preexisting condition exclusions; such plan provisions must be changed to comply with HIPAA's limitations on preexisting condition exclusions. One example identified by the agencies is a plan provision that excludes benefits for pregnancy until twelve months after an individual becomes eligible for plan benefits. The agencies emphasized that preexisting condition exclusions cannot be applied to pregnancy.
- G roup health plans and group health insurance issuers must offer "special enrollment" under certain circumstances, such as when individuals lose eligibility in their previous plans due to lifetime benefit limits or because of a move outside of a plan's service area.
The final regulations are available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fedreg/final/2004028112.pdf .
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
