NFP's Insights from the Experts NFP's Insights from the Experts

In this episode, Suzanne Spradley and Chase Cannon review the current state and federal regulation of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), focusing on litigation surrounding recent state-enacted PBM rules. Suzanne starts off with a high-level description of PBMs and the role they play in the group health plan context. Suzanne and Chase discuss the plethora of state laws (proposed and enacted) focused on PBM regulation and the role courts have played in ERISA preemption of state laws, including in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. Suzanne concludes with a discussion of ERISA fiduciary obligations in the context of the J&J lawsuit, including a few employer takeaways on establishing a process for making plan-related decisions on pharmacy and other benefits and administration.

In this episode, Suzanne Spradley and Chase Cannon discuss the US importation policies and rules aimed at lowering domestic prescription drug costs. Suzanne walks through the legalities of drug importation generally and then outlines the specific programs by which states can develop importation plans. Chase and Suzanne discuss several state importation proposals and how they could potentially bring savings to US consumers. Suzanne closes by addressing Canadian concerns relating to potential US drug importation.

In this episode, Chase Cannon and Suzanne Spradley remind employers about important ACA employer mandate reporting deadlines with the IRS, including a change in electronic reporting in 2024 for smaller employers. Chase also outlines some updated numbers relating to the federal poverty line (FPL), ACA affordability calculations and ACA penalty amounts, which are all adjusted annually. Suzanne and Chase finish with a discussion on an IRS alert regarding wellness vendors that are erroneously claiming certain expenses are “medical care” under the IRS rules.

In this episode, Suzanne Spradley and Chase Cannon give an overview of the No Surprises Act (NSA) — a consumer health protection law that places certain requirements on providers and payers (insurers and group health plans). Suzanne describes the main requirements under the NSA and introduces the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process, which is an integral part of the NSA’s implementation. Suzanne and Chase discuss the challenges facing the IDR in its first few years, as well as the legal challenges to the federal guidance outlining IDR procedures and practices. Suzanne closes with a discussion of what to look for in 2024 and how the NSA and IDR may impact employers.

In this episode, Chase Cannon and Suzanne Spradley discuss employer compliance with the HIPAA privacy and security rules via lessons learned from three new HHS HIPAA settlement announcements. Chase leads off with a high-level review of the HIPAA rules for both fully and self-insured plans and the importance of safeguarding protected health information (PHI). Chase and Suzanne discuss the background and scenarios that led to the HHS investigation, how unauthorized access to PHI arose in the three settlement scenarios, and the importance of employers running a HIPAA risk assessment to get ahead of potential HIPAA problems. Chase and Suzanne share practical tips on HIPAA compliance, including training employees, involving IT and Technology teams when developing policies and procedures, and controlling access points (servers, emails, etc.) to electronic and physical PHI.

In this episode, Suzanne Spradley and Chase Cannon discuss a recent circuit-level decision relating to employee termination and its interaction with a participant lawsuit based on ERISA Section 510 (which prohibits an employer’s interference with a plan participant’s right to benefits). Suzanne provides background on ERISA 510 and how it applies to employer’s group health plans.



Suzanne and Chase analyze a case where an employer terminated an employee shortly after their return to work following a leave of absence for a medical procedure. The two close by discussing how the court weighed certain factors when determining the employer violated the participant’s Section 510 rights.