Insights

The Departments of Labor (“DOL”), Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and Treasury (the “Tri-Agencies”) have signaled that changes may be coming to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) Final Rule issued on September 8, 2024. On May 9, 2025, the Tri-Agencies filed a Motion for Abeyance in a lawsuit brought by the ERISA Industry Committee (“ERIC”) challenging the 2024 final MHPAEA regulations in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[1] The Motion, which was granted by the Court, indicated that the Tri-Agencies intend to “reconsider” the Final Rule, including “whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking rescinding or modifying the Final Rule.” Yesterday, on May 15, 2025, the Tri-Agencies issued a notice of non-enforcement stating that they “will not enforce the 2024 Final Rule or otherwise pursue enforcement actions, based on a failure to comply that occurs prior to a final decision in the litigation, plus an additional 18 months.”

On January 17, 2025, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (the “Tri-Agencies”) released the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) Report to Congress (the “Report”). The Report is the third report made by the Tri-Agencies to Congress in accordance with the mandate set forth in the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (“CAA”). The CAA requires that, each year starting in 2021, the Tri-Agencies submit a report to Congress summarizing their activity in the prior year to collect comparative analyses from plans and issuers and any findings made with respect to noncompliance with MHPAEA.[1] Under the CAA, the Report is due by October 1 of each year. This year’s version was published on the last working day of the Biden Administration.

On Monday, September 8, 2024, the United States Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, the “Tri-Agencies”) issued a final rule (“the Final Rule”) implementing new regulations applicable to nonquantitative treatment limitations (“NQTLs”) under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”). The Final Rule codifies many of the requirements set forth in the (the “Proposed Rule”), while pulling back on some of the Tri-Agencies’ more controversial proposals. 

On July 25, 2023, the U.S. Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (the “Tri-Agencies”) released long awaited proposed regulations (the “Proposed Rule”) and a Technical Release, which together propose new requirements for comparative analyses of nonquantitative treatment limitations (“NQTL”) under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (“MHPAEA”).  On the same day, the Tri-Agencies released their annual report to Congress on implementation of MHPAEA, as required under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA 2021”). 

On January 25, 2022, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and the Treasury (the “Tri-agencies”) released their 2022 annual report to Congress on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”).

On September 30, 2021, the Departments of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Labor, and Treasury, as well as the Office of Personnel Management (collectively, “the Departments”), issued a second interim final rulemaking implementing provisions of the No Surprises Act passed by Congress earlier this year. 

Congress added additional compliance and oversight requirements focused on nonquantitative treatment limitations (“NQTLs”) in Division BB, Title II, Section 203 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The law formalizes the four-step NQTL compliance analysis outlined in sub-regulatory guidance, obligates health plans and health insurance issuers (“plans/issuers”) to make the compliance analysis available to state regulators, DOL, or HHS upon request, and charges DOL and HHS with conducting at least 20 reviews of such analysis each year. And the law directs the federal government to finalize interim guidance and regulations and update compliance guidance with de-identified, real-world examples of compliant and non-compliant NQTLs with sufficient detail to show whether the processes, factors, or other criteria hit or missed the mark.

With first calendar quarter earnings set to be released by issuers in the coming weeks, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton and the SEC’s Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, William Hinman, issued a public statement on April 8, 2020, encouraging issuers to provide meaningful forward-looking disclosures regarding the impact of COVID-19 in their upcoming earnings releases and on calls with analysts and investors. This follows on the heels of the March 25, 2020 release of Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 9 by the Division of Corporation Finance, which provides its current views regarding disclosure and other securities law obligations that issuers should consider with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic and related business and market disruptions. 

On April 2, 2014, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. FEC struck down the limits on aggregate campaign contributions by an individual to federal candidates, party committees, and political action committees combined ($123,200 for the 2013-2014 election cycle). The decision also eliminates the limit on aggregate contributions by an individual to all federal candidates combined, which before yesterday was $48,600 for the current election cycle. 

On March 27, 2013, in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a class cannot be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) unless plaintiffs prove that they can calculate damages on a classwide basis, and that the proposed damages methodology isolates damages to the specific theory of harm for which the class is certified. Building on its decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Court confirmed that the analytical principles it articulated for determining whether the Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied apply equally—if not more so—to Rule 23(b), particularly because Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance prong is more demanding. In finding that the district court had improperly certified the class, the Court reaffirmed that a court cannot sidestep the mandated rigorous analysis required for class certification under Rule 23 simply because the inquiry would also be relevant to the merits determination.  

Earlier today, the U.S. Senate passed the conference report for H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In a little-discussed piece of this sweeping financial reform legislation, Congress authorized the creation of two new bounty programs that will provide substantial monetary awards to whistleblowers who provide information that leads to an enforcement action with monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000 imposed by either the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Sec. 922) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (Sec. 748). These bounty hunter provisions, which are expected to be signed into law by President Obama next week, are broadly drafted and could have far-reaching application to cases involving accounting fraud, disclosure violations, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.