Tanusha Yarlagadda

Subscribe to Tanusha Yarlagadda's Posts
Contact:Read more about Tanusha Yarlagadda

Last week, the Departments of Labor, Treasury and Health and Human Services rolled back two non-enforcement policies related to the machine-readable file requirements included in the transparency in coverage (TIC) final rules: (1) deferred enforcement of the requirement that health plans post a machine-readable file listing negotiated rates and historical net prices for covered prescription drugs, and (2) an enforcement safe harbor with respect to the requirement that dollar amounts be listed in the in-network rate machine-readable file for items and services for which it is difficult to ascertain dollar amounts in advance. The guidance was released in the form of FAQs, which can be viewed here.

By way of brief background, for plan years starting on or after July 1, 2022, non-grandfathered health plans are required to post three machine-readable files (updated monthly) covering the following: (1) in-network rates (expressed as a dollar amount) for covered items and services, (2) allowed amounts for covered items and services furnished by out-of-network providers, and (3) negotiated rates and historical net prices for covered prescription drugs. 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit approved the parties’ stipulated agreement to stay enforcement of the district court decision in Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra until the appeal is resolved (with a limited exception for the named plaintiffs).  As readers will recall from our prior blog, in Braidwood, a district court had enjoined enforcement of the preventive services mandate for “A” or “B” items and services recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (“USPSTF”) on or after March 23, 2010.  If the district court decision stands, non-grandfathered health plans would not have to cover those particular preventive services without cost-sharing.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an administrative stay of enforcement of the district court decision in Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra.  Readers of our earlier blog (found here) will remember that in Braidwood, the district court enjoined enforcement of the preventive services mandate for “A” or “B” items and services recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (“USPSTF”) on or after March 23, 2010.  If the district court decision stands, this means that non-grandfathered plans would not have to cover these services without cost-sharing.  However, as a result of the Fifth Circuit stay issued on May 15, non-grandfathered health plans will continue to be subject to the mandate for these services for the time being.  All other preventive care requirements for health plans remain in place.