Choose Site
On December 18, President Barack Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act (the Act) , which includes a variety of tax extenders that we will address in a series of posts.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published a proposed rule to amend Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) as it relates to employer wellness programs that are part of group health plans.
Like all things involving governmental health plans, trying to apply an administrative structure designed for traditional employers creates a special set of challenges for the governmental employers sponsoring those plans.
Earlier this year, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that addresses how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to employer wellness programs that are integrated with a group health plan.
The US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is gearing up for the second phase of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) audits.
On July 31, US President Barack Obama extended the funding for US highways when he signed H.R. 3236 (now Public Law No. 114-41) into law, but tucked into the law were changes to some significant benefits-related tax filing dates and veterans’ benefit rules.
On July 30, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Notice 2015-52 (the Notice) addressing issues raised by the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage (often referred to as the “Cadillac tax”).
The US Supreme Court’s recent decision recognizing a constitutionally protected right for same-sex couples to marry, Obergefell et al. v. Hodges , was an important step forward for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, but it did not address other types of potential discrimination against LGBT individuals.
What should employers be thinking about now that the US Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) premium assistance structure in King v. Burwell ?