Put two lawyers in a room and they will come out with three different opinions………….
First article opines “Texas and Oklahoma have also recently enacted laws that permit individuals to file civil actions against entities that perform abortions or “knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the cost of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.”
Second article opines “Self-funded group health plans are not subject to state laws due to ERISA’s preemptive force. These plans are free to reimburse the cost of procuring an abortion in a state in which abortion is otherwise illegal along with the costs of travel to a jurisdiction in which abortion legal.”
 “Texas and Oklahoma have also recently enacted laws that permit individuals to file civil actions against entities that perform abortions or “knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the cost of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.” Both the Texas and Oklahoma laws are being challenged in court.”
“The Texas and Oklahoma laws are the only ones that explicitly classify employer coverage or reimbursement of abortion services banned in those states through insurance or benefit plans as aiding and abetting unlawful abortion.” |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health: Implications for Employers and Employer Plan Sponsors
“The Texas and Oklahoma laws are the only ones that explicitly classify employer coverage or reimbursement of abortion services banned in those states through insurance or benefit plans as aiding and abetting unlawful abortion…. There is some risk, however, that state criminal conspiracy and/or aiding and abetting laws may be cited against companies that cover abortion or abortion services, including receipt of abortion medication, within a particular state.” [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (S. Ct. Jun. 24, 2022)] MORE >> “Self-funded group health plans are not subject to state laws due to ERISA’s preemptive force. These plans are free to reimburse the cost of procuring an abortion in a state in which abortion is otherwise illegal along with the costs of travel to a jurisdiction in which abortion legal.” |
| Group Health Plans in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
“In light of Dobbs, there is no guarantee that the description of the current state of ERISA preemption jurisprudence will provide a safe haven for employers that seek to facilitate reproductive choice in their group health plans. The Supreme Court could, for example, narrow the set of criminal laws that would be ERISA-preempted under the exemption for laws of general applicability.” [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (S. Ct. Jun. 24, 2022)] MORE >> |
| Medical Travel Reimbursement Benefits Under the Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision
“Third-party administrators may not be willing or able to administer travel reimbursement programs immediately … Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and telehealth providers may also be affected by new state restrictions on abortions…. Certain travel and lodging expenses can be reimbursed as ‘medical care,’ and thus are excludable from income for an employee…. Employers considering reimbursing for certain medical travel — but not for travel related to mental health or substance-use disorder benefits — may also want to evaluate risks under [MHPAEA].’ [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (S. Ct. Jun. 24, 2022)] MORE >> |
| SCOTUS Overturns Roe: Understanding the Impact on Employer-Sponsored Benefit Plans
“In anticipation of the Dobbs decision, employers have extended travel and lodging benefits to abortion and/or other covered medical care that may be hard to access due to state law or policy, while others have expanded it to all covered medical services that are not available within a certain radius of the employee’s home…. Some employers are exploring options that don’t rely upon carrier or TPA capabilities and may offer more flexibility in design and administration.” [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (S. Ct. Jun. 24, 2022)] MORE >> |
