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 | 7 min read | 06.24.26
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ( National Security Division (NSD) announced that it had issued a declination for Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch) relating to potential violations of the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4819 (ECRA). Specifically, the DOJ declined to criminally prosecute Bosch’s violations of the Export Administration Regulations’ (EAR) Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which apparently resulted from two Bosch subsidiaries’ export of products and software manufactured with equipment that was the direct product of U.S. software or technology to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its “Entity List” affiliates, including Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd., Hong Kong (collectively, Huawei). The same day, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a parallel civil administrative settlement with Bosch.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.24.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.23.26
EPA Hands Over AI Data Center Regulation to States and Communities to Develop Best Practices
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.22.26
