CMS Rules on Premium Increases
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.19.11
HHS has issued a final rule requiring independent review at the state level for proposed premium rate increases of 10 percent or more for individual and small group health insurance plans. HHS will serve in a backup role in states that don't have the resources or authority to review rates. Starting September 2012, the 10-percent threshold will be replaced by state-specific thresholds that reflect the insurance and health care cost trends in each state. The final rule clarifies that HHS will work with states in developing these thresholds. The rule requires insurance companies to provide consumers with information about the reasons for certain rate increases and post the justification for those hikes on their website as well as on the HHS Affordable Care Act website
The regulation issued today finalizes proposed rules issued in December 2010. The final rule has several additions to the proposed rule, including a requirement that states provide an opportunity for public input in the evaluation of rate increases subject to review. HHS is also requesting comment from the public on applying the rule to individual and small group coverage sold through associations.
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
