More U.S. companies have said they will cover the cost for employees to travel out of state for abortions, when necessary, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 24 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed the Roe v. Wade decision and allowed states to restrict or end access to abortions.
Employers that are considering offering abortion-related benefits, such as out-of-state travel to a jurisdiction where abortion laws are more accommodating, should keep in mind compliance and liability considerations, benefits advisors point out.
Employers that operate in multiple states will also need to navigate a patchwork of different rules affecting abortion coverage, depending on where covered employees and dependents live, work and receive health care.
|
Fully Insured vs. Self-Insured Plans Self-insured employers may have more leeway to provide abortion assistance in states with restrictive laws, depending on how courts interpret the interplay between the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and state statutes, benefits advisors have noted. “Fully insured plans would be subject to any state law that bans coverage of either performing or being a patient for an abortion,” said Sarah Borders, compliance specialist at MillenGroup Benefits, a benefits advisory firm based in Richmond, Va., However, “self-insured plans would generally be exempt from state law banning abortion coverage under the health plan, with the exception of states that criminalize facilitating abortive care,” she said. “In other words, even if self-funded plans are preempted by ERISA and not subject to state insurance law, it may still be a criminal offense to provide abortion services in that state,” Borders noted. According to an alert by attorneys at national law firm Ropes and Gray, “while self-funded employers can continue to offer coverage for abortion services under their group health plans, local access to these services for employees working or residing in states where abortion is prohibited will necessarily be restricted. Employers whose group health plans have in-network providers in multiple states, however, can continue to provide coverage and access to abortion services from such providers in states where abortion is legal.” Employers that offer fully insured health plans, they added, can “consider the feasibility of transitioning to self-insured coverage. Admittedly, this will not be an economically viable option for many employers, especially those who employ relatively few employees, but for employers where the economics could work, self-funded health plans would give these employers more flexibility in plan design.” Employers with self-insured plans could change their coverage allowances during the plan year to allow for travel costs and coverage of non-network abortion providers, as long as employee premiums don’t change, said Roberta Casper Watson, a partner in the Tampa, Fla., office of The Wagner Group law firm, in an interview with Bloomberg Law. |
Travel and Tax Issues
Generally, the travel reimbursement will be taxable compensation to employees “except to the extent the reimbursements qualify as medical expenses,” wrote Benjamin Gibbons, an attorney in the Boise, Idaho, office of Holland and Hart.
Depending on what travel expenses are covered and how much is being reimbursed, “some expenses may constitute medical care and some may not,” Gibbons explained. “If the travel reimbursement is considered to be a medical expense, employers will generally need to integrate the benefit with the company’s group health plan to ensure compliance with the Affordable Care Act.”
Involve Carriers, TPAs and EAPs
All group health plans providing any form of abortion-related coverage should be reviewed relative to applicable state laws, wrote Richard Stover, a principal at HR advisory firm Buck in New York City, and Randie Thompson, Denver-based director of compliance at Buck. “Varying application of abortion laws and access to medical treatment across the states will require in-depth analysis, particularly for large, multistate employers,” they noted.
Employers should discuss with their medical carrier, third-party administrator (TPA), and employee assistance program (EAP) what travel benefits they are able and willing to administer, Stover and Thompson advised.
Julie Campbell, a principal with Mercer in New York City, and Katharine Marshall, a Mercer principal in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that some employers are exploring options that don’t rely upon carrier or TPA capabilities and may offer more flexibility in design and administration.
For example, they wrote, an EAP, a hardship fund or a lifestyle spending account “might offer reimbursement of travel and lodging expenses for employees regardless of medical plan coverage or enrollment.”
Topics that Campbell and Marshall advised discussing with legal counsel include:
- Coverage and reimbursement limitations under ERISA and the tax code. ERISA permits a group health plan to cover transportation primarily for, and essential to, medical care, and the code considers such transportation to be a reimbursable medical expense, subject to certain requirements and limits. Complications and tax issues can arise when a travel and lodging benefit is offered outside of the medical plan and/or if the coverage is more generous than IRS limits.
- Mental health parity and nonquantitative treatment limits. If the travel benefit is integrated with a group health plan that also provides mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits, compliance issues could arise if the travel benefit is not similarly extended to inaccessible MH/SUD care.
- Privacy protections. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy and security rules apply to benefits offered through the group health plan and may require a business associate agreement if a new vendor is added to administer the benefit. A travel and lodging benefit outside of the group health plan may be subject to other privacy laws depending on the information required to substantiate expenses.
In addition, employers “might want to explore telemedicine, women’s health services, or health care navigation options to determine their capabilities to take patients, prescribe medications, or offer navigation and care coordination services,” Campbell and Marshall said, and “also consider communicating and promoting time-off and leave policies for employees who need to travel to access services.”
|
Benefits Outside the Group Health Plan If an employer provides a travel benefit outside of its group health plan, “the employer could unwittingly create another group health plan that would raise numerous compliance issues,” including ERISA reporting, HIPAA privacy requirements and COBRA continuation rights, said an alert by attorneys at national law firm Jackson Lewis. “We generally do not recommend that employers offer travel benefits for medical care outside of their group health plans,” the firm advised. Similarly, attorneys at Ropes and Gray wrote that “some employers have contemplated administering travel reimbursements outside of their health plan and treating such reimbursements as taxable income to the employee.” They cautioned, however, that “while the seeming simplicity of such an approach may make it appear attractive, it is not without its risks [such as] the need to respect the right of an employee to keep her health care decisions private against requiring proper documentation of the expenses incurred.” |
Liability Risks
Amending a group health plan to provide travel benefits for participants to receive abortions outside of a state where abortions are not legal “could subject an employer and its employees to potential risk under state law,” so employers should proceed with caution if doing so, advised the Jackson Lewis attorneys.
Meredith Kirshenbaum, a principal in the Chicago office of law firm Goldberg Kohn, said that in states such as Texas, where a new state law bans most abortions after about six weeks and allows private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” a prohibited abortion, “we are likely to see litigation of this issue” of employers reimbursing abortion travel and providing related benefits.”
Kirshenbaum expects to see states “push the limits in drafting private right of action provisions to address abortions performed across state lines.”
However, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “[M]ay a state bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”
That view was shared by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. “We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances,” Garland said in a June 24 statement. “But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal.”
|
3 Action Steps for Employers Attorneys at Ropers & Gray advise employers that decide to expand access to abortion services to consider the following steps:
|
Related SHRM Articles:
Companies Are Announcing Abortion-Travel Benefits Following Dobbs Decision, SHRM Online, June 2022
Employers Likely to Revisit Abortion Coverage, Other Benefits, with Roe Overturned, SHRM Online, updated June 2022
Be Aware of Legal Risks with Post-Roe Abortion Benefits, SHRM Online, May 2022
