Compliance and Legal Department Archives - Page 10 of 20

Agencies Issue Additional Guidance on OTC COVID-19 Tests

Posted on February 15, 2022February 15, 2022 by Stacy Barrow

On February 4, 2022, federal agencies released additional FAQs related to coverage of over-the-counter (“OTC”) COVID-19 tests by group health plans and health insurance carriers. The FAQs are intended to clarify the previous FAQs released on January 10, 2022.

Prior Guidance

On January 10, 2022, the agencies released initial guidance for plans and carriers, which required them to cover FDA-approved at-home, OTC COVID-19 tests without cost-sharing, prior authorization, or medical management, and without the need for a prescription or recommendation of a health care provider. These requirements apply during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Notably, plans and carriers are not required to cover OTC COVID-19 tests purchased or used for workplace testing/employment purposes.

Plans and carriers may reimburse participants for their purchase upon submission of a claim or by reimbursing the entity who sold the test directly. The guidance provided for two safe harbors, which permit plans and carriers to:

limit reimbursement to the lower of the actual price or $12 per test if the plan arranges for direct-to-consumer coverage of OTC COVID-19 tests that meet the FFCRA criteria through both its pharmacy network (or another entity designated by the plan or carrier) and a direct-to-consumer shipping program; and
limit coverage to no less than eight (8) tests per Individual for a 30-day or one month period.

In order to limit reimbursements for tests purchased from non-preferred providers, plans must ensure there are an adequate number of retail locations (in-person and online) with access to OTC COVID-19 tests and communicate necessary information about the direct coverage program, including when it is available and which retail pharmacies are available.

New Guidance

The guidance issued on February 4, 2022 (which is generally effective prospectively for purposes of the first 5 bullets below), helps clarify some of the requirements in the initial guidance, and provides the following:

Plans and carriers have flexibility in how they provide access to OTC COVID-19 tests under the first safe harbor. As such, generally the safe harbor applies if the plan provides access to at least one direct-to-consumer shipping mechanism and at least one in-person mechanism. Direct coverage could include the following (and the methods used by the plan must be communicated to participants):
1. Direct-to-consumer shipping that allows orders to be placed by phone or online;
1. directly through the plan’s or carrier’s pharmacy network retailer;
1. other non-pharmacy network retailers (including through distribution of coupons to receive tests from certain retailers without cost-sharing); and
1. alternative OTC COVID-19 test distribution sites such as a standalone drive-through or walk-up distribution site (even if the site operates independently of a pharmacy or retailer).
Whether access to OTC COVID-19 tests is adequate is still determined based on all relevant facts and circumstances, including locality, which tests are covered, utilization, and communication of where tests can be purchased.
Not all OTC COVID-19 tests are required to be covered by the direct coverage program. Depending on the facts and circumstances, plans can limit the number of test manufacturers, such as those with whom the plan has contracted.
Reasonable shipping costs for direct-to-consumer shipping must be covered by the plan.
Plans won’t be penalized for supply chain shortages. Where there is a shortage of tests, the plan may still be able to limit reimbursement to the lower of $12 or the cost of the test for tests purchased outside the direct coverage program if all other requirements under the safe harbor are met.
Reimbursement is intended for tests that can be read by participants at home, not those that are intended to be read by a laboratory or health care provider. Tests that are not approved to be self-administered and self-read are not covered by this guidance; however, they may still be required to be covered by the plan if they are FDA approved and ordered by a health care provider.
Plans can curtail fraud and abuse by limiting coverage of OTC COVID-19 tests that are purchased without involvement of a health care provider to those purchased from established retailers that would typically be expected to sell OTC COVID-19 tests. This means, they could prohibit reimbursement of tests purchased from private individuals (in person or online) or from a seller that uses an online auction or resale marketplace. Further, the plan could require reasonable documentation of proof of purchase that clearly identifies the product and seller, such as a UPC code or other serial number, original receipt from the seller of the test. It is important for plans and carriers to communicate these limitations to participants, and that they do not utilize onerous processes or processes that result in delaying coverage of or access to OTC COVID-19 tests.
Finally, while coverage of OTC COVID-19 expense is a Section 213(d) medical expense which can be reimbursed under an HSA, health FSA or HRA, participants cannot be reimbursed more than once for the same medical expense. Therefore, the cost (or the portion of the cost) of OTC COVID-19 tests paid or reimbursed by a plan cannot also be reimbursed by an HSA, health FSA or HRA. Plans are encouraged to communicate this to participants and to discourage them from using a health FSA or HRA debit card when purchasing the OTC COVID-19 test if they will be seeking reimbursement from the health plan.

Plans and carriers can use this additional guidance to tailor their OTC COVID-19 test coverage, and employers are encouraged to work directly with their carriers and TPAs to ensure they are adequately communicating their OTC COVID-19 testing coverage requirements to participants.

________________________________________

About the Authors. This alert was prepared by Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP, a national law firm with recognized experts on the Affordable Care Act. Contact Stacy Barrow or Nicole Quinn-Gato at sbarrow@marbarlaw.com or nquinngato@marbarlaw.com.

This notice is a service to our clients and friends. It is designed only to give general information on the developments actually covered. It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of recent developments in the law, treat exhaustively the subjects covered, provide legal advice, or render a legal opinion.

Benefit Advisors Network and its members are not attorneys and are not responsible for any legal advice. To fully understand how this or any legal or compliance information affects your unique situation, you should check with a qualified attorney.

U.S. Supreme Court Stays OSHA’s ETS for Private Employers with 100 or More Employees; Upholds CMS’ Interim Final Rule for Health Care Workers

Posted on January 13, 2022January 26, 2022 by Stacy Barrow

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court released its much anticipated opinions in the ongoing challenges to OSHA’s November 5, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring private employers with 100 or more employees to either mandate employees be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing and mask mandates, and CMS’ November 5, 2021 Interim Final Rule requiring health care workers working at facilities that receive funding from Medicare or Medicaid to be vaccinated unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption.

OSHA ETS

In a 6 to 3 majority, with only Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners (various states and private businesses) were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that OSHA’s ETS exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful.

Among other things, the majority recognized that OSHAs statutory authority is limited to occupational hazards, and a global pandemic extends well beyond the workplace, such as creating risks in schools, at home, in churches, and in recreational facilities. Therefore, OSHA has no statutory authority to regulate workplaces with a public health mandate using such a broad stroke; however, the Court recognized OSHA may have the authority to address COVID-19 risks in the workplace for specific, targeted industries, such as workplaces where research on COVID-19 is being conducted.

Accordingly, the OSHA ETS is stayed for private employers with 100+ employees while the issue is fully reviewed and briefed in the 6^th Circuit and any resulting petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, if any, are resolved. Therefore, OSHA cannot enforce its ETS at this time, and may not be able to do so for months, if at all.

CMS Interim Final Rule

On the other hand, the Court upheld the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Interim Final Rule, which added a new requirement to existing conditions of participation in Medicare and Medicaid, that requires facilities to ensure that their staff who work on site are vaccinated against COVID–19 unless a staff member is exempt for religious or medical reasons. This requirement was successfully challenged by two groups of states in two separate federal courts; however, the United States Supreme Court held that CMS has the statutory authority to, among other things, impose conditions on entities that receive funding from Medicaid and Medicare that “the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services.” Further, vaccine mandates for health care workers are not a new concept and many health care workers are already required to receive a number of other vaccines, subject to the same medical and religious exemptions applicable to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Accordingly, the Court lifted the stay for the remainder of the appeals pending in the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeal and the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeal, as well as any resulting challenge upon writ of certiorari presented to the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, health care facilities/employers subject to the CMS Interim Final Rule may require employees to be vaccinated unless a medical or religious exemption applies.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

Employers with 100+ employees who are not subject to the Health Care rule are not required to move forward with developing a plan to implement a vaccine mandate or weekly testing and mask mandate for their employees at this time. This would only change if OSHA is successful on the underlying merits of the case pending before the 6^th Circuit, which may take months to conclude, and the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that decision. In essence, OSHA has a very steep uphill battle ahead of it should it wish to continue pursuing the ETS. For employers/facilities subject to the CMS Interim Final Rule, they must comply with the vaccine mandate for employees who are not eligible for an exemption for religious or medical reasons.

_______________________________________

Agencies Issue FAQs Regarding Coverage of Over the Counter COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests

Posted on January 12, 2022January 26, 2022 by Stacy Barrow

On December 2, 2021, President Biden announced that federal agencies would soon issue guidance regarding the availability of coverage/reimbursement from group health plans and health insurance carriers for individuals who purchase over the counter, at-home COVID-19 diagnostic tests (“OTC COVID-19 tests”). Accordingly, on January 10, 2022, the agencies released “FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 51, Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) Implementation” which, among other things, requires group health plans and health insurance carriers to reimburse participants, beneficiaries, or enrollees (“Individuals”) for no less than eight (8) OTC COVID-19 tests per calendar month beginning on January 15, 2022 (i.e., for tests purchased on or after January 15, 2022).

Background

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FFCRA requires group health plans (self-funded, fully-insured, grandfathered, and non-grandfathered plans, but not excepted benefits such as dental or vision) and health insurance issuers (“Plans and Carriers”) to cover testing or certain other items or services intended to diagnose COVID-19 without cost sharing (deductibles, copays, or coinsurance), prior authorization, or other medical management requirements. It also permits the agencies to implement the FFCRA through sub-regulatory guidance, program instruction, or otherwise. The CARES Act expanded the FFCRA to, among other things, include a broader range of reimbursable COVID-19 diagnostic items and services that must be covered without cost-sharing, prior authorization, or medical management during the public health emergency.

In 2020, the agencies implemented several FAQs intended to serve as statements of policy to implement the above-referenced requirements under the FFCRA and CARES Act. Since that time, the FDA has authorized at-home OTC COVID-19 diagnostic tests that individuals can self-administer and self-read to diagnose COVID-19. Accordingly, per the agencies, the FAQs issued on January 10, 2022 are intended to address both the FDAs approval of at-home OTC COVID-19 tests and the President’s request for additional guidance on group health plan coverage for these tests to address the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency.

FAQ Guidance

Pursuant to the FAQs, Plans and Carriers must cover OTC COVID-19 tests that meet the criteria specified under the FFCRA even if they are not ordered by a health care professional, and must cover such tests without imposing cost-sharing, prior authorization, or medical management requirements. This is so even if there is no order from a health professional for an Individual.

Coverage by the plan may be accomplished by directly reimbursing Individuals for their purchase upon submission of a claim by the Individual, or by reimbursing the entity who sold the OTC COVID-19 test directly, though the agencies strongly encourage plans to adopt the latter approach.

Note, however, there is no requirement for Plans or Carriers to provide coverage of OTC COVID-19 tests that are intended for employment testing, such as weekly testing an unvaccinated Individual is required to undergo pursuant to the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) or an employer’s own mandated testing program.

Plans and Carriers are required to reimburse OTC COVID-19 tests purchased from any retailer or pharmacy if the test meets the FFCRA statutory criteria, but if the test is administered without a health care provider’s assessment or order for testing and purchased from out-of-network pharmacies or retailers, then the Plan or Carrier may limit reimbursement to the lower of the actual price or $12 per test if the Plan or Carrier arranges for direct coverage (meaning the Individual who purchases the OTC COVID-19 test is not required to seek reimbursement post-purchase or make any up-front out-of-pocket expenditures) of OTC COVID-19 tests that meet the FFCRA criteria through both its pharmacy network and a direct-to-consumer shipping program. Per the agencies, the direct-to-consumer shipping program may be provided through one or more in-network provider(s) or another entity designated by the Plan or Carrier.

In order to limit reimbursements for tests purchased from non-preferred providers, Plans and Carriers must ensure there are an adequate number of retail locations (in-person and online) with access to OTC COVID-19 tests and communicate necessary information about the direct coverage program, including when it is available and which retail pharmacies are available.

Per the agencies, whether access is adequate is determined based on all relevant facts and circumstances, including where Individuals are located and current utilization of the Plans’ or Carrier’s pharmacy network by Individuals. Further, if there are significant delays for individuals to receive the OTC COVID-19 tests, such as through the shipping program, the Plan or Carrier must allow Individuals to purchase (and be reimbursed for) their OTC COVID-19 tests from any retailer.

The agencies also recognize the important need for adequate testing to be available to health care providers who are diagnosing and treating COVID-19, and that everyone has reasonable access to OTC COVID-19 tests. Thus, to prevent stockpiling and provide adequate safeguards, the agencies permit Plans and Carriers to limit OTC COVID-19 tests purchased by Individuals without a health care provider’s involvement or assessment, the agency provides a safe harbor from agency enforcement action for Plans or Carriers that limit the number of OTC COVID-19 tests eligible for reimbursement per Individual to no less than eight (8) tests per 30-day period or per calendar month. Plans and Carriers are not permitted to limit Individuals to a smaller number of tests over a short period of time (such as limiting Individuals to four (4) tests per 15-day period). Plans can choose to be more generous by reimbursing a larger number of OTC COVID-19 tests (i.e., more than 8) per calendar month if they prefer.

Testing for Employment Purposes

Plans and Carriers are permitted to address suspected fraud and abuse, such as taking reasonable steps to ensure OTC COVID-19 tests are purchased for an Individual’s (or their covered family member’s) own personal use as long as the steps do not create significant access barriers. This may include requiring attestations that the OTC COVID-19 test was purchased by the Individual for personal, non-employment related use, will not be reimbursed by another source, and will not be made available for resale as long as the attestation process is reasonable and does not result in undue delay of reimbursement. Plans and Carriers may also require reasonable documentation as proof of purchase, such as the UPC code from the OTC COVID-19 test, when claims are submitted.

Finally, Plans and Carriers may assist Individuals by providing education and information resources to support Individuals seeking OTC COVID-19 testing as long as the materials clearly indicate the Plan or Carrier is required to cover all OTC COVID-19 tests that meet FFCRA criteria (subject to the safe harbors referenced previously). The FAQs provide some examples of potential education and information resources Plans and Carriers may use.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

Employers are encouraged to work with their carriers or third-party administrators and stop-loss carriers to ensure these new requirements are implemented and to determine whether the plan will implement any of the permitted safe harbors so that this can be effectively communicated to employees and their family members.

The agencies clarified that they will not take enforcement action against Plans or Carriers for modifying health insurance coverage mid-year to meet these requirements or for failing to meet the 60-day advance notice requirements (for changes made to information required to be included in SBCs) if notice of these changes is provided as soon as reasonably practicable.

Finally, employers should clearly articulate to employees that the employer’s testing policy adopted pursuant to the OSHA ETS, if any, is not subject to this requirement and, employees are expected to pay out of pocket for weekly COVID-19 tests without seeking reimbursement from the employer’s group health plan if the employer does not pay for the applicable testing. Further, pursuant to the OSHA ETS, while the employer may allow an OTC COVID-19 test to be used for purposes of applicable employment testing, the test may not be both self-administered and self-read unless observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor.

______________________________________________________

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Dissolves 5th Circuit’s Stay of OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing; OSHA Plans to Implement Beginning January 10, 2022

Posted on December 21, 2021December 21, 2021 by Stacy Barrow

On December 17, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit (6^th Circuit) dissolved the stay of OSHA’s November 5, 2021, Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for private employers with 100 or more employees issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit (5^th Circuit). As a result of the 6^th Circuit’s decision, OSHA announced that it intends to move forward with implementing the ETS. OSHA indicated it will not issue citations for noncompliance with its November 5, 2021, ETS before January 10 (which is now the deadline for employers to, among other things, develop their written COVID-19 vaccination policies). Further, if an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with ensuring its employees are fully vaccinated or submit to weekly testing, OSHA will not issue citations for any employees who are not fully vaccinated before (or if the employer is not testing prior to) February 9, 2022.

Note, the 6^th Circuit’s order only impacts private employers with 100 or more employees, it does not address the ETS for Health Care Workers or the COVID-19 Workplace Safety Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors, both of which have been separately enjoined in other lawsuits. Currently, the mandate for health care workers has been enjoined in twenty-four states and the federal contractor mandate has been enjoined nationwide.

OSHA ETS

As a reminder, the ETS originally required employers with 100 or more employees to develop and implement a mandatory, written COVID-19 vaccination policy by December 5, 2021, or a written policy requiring employees to either be vaccinated or produce a negative COVID-19 test result and wear a face covering at work. Employers were originally required to begin enforcing the policy on January 4, 2022, meaning most employees of covered employers would have to submit to regular testing and wear a face covering or be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022.

The ETS permits covered employers to allow for reasonable accommodation for employees who cannot be vaccinated and/or wear a face-covering due to a disability, as defined by the ADA, or if vaccination, and/or testing for COVID-19, and/or wearing a face-covering conflicts with an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.

Further, the ETS requires employers to provide employees with time off for obtaining their vaccinations. Specifically, the ETS requires employers to provide employees with a reasonable amount of paid time (up to 4 hours at their regular rate of pay per dose, as applicable) to travel to and receive their COVID-19 vaccine dose(s). Further, employers are required to provide reasonable time and paid sick leave to employees who need the time to recover from the side effects of either dose, as applicable, of the vaccine.

Litigation Background and 6^th Circuit’s Decision

The OSHA ETS was immediately challenged by a number of petitioners, including states and private companies, seeking to permanently enjoin enforcement of the ETS. On November 6, 2021, the 5^th Circuit temporarily stayed enforcement of the ETS pending briefing by the parties and expedited judicial review.

After completing its expedited review, on November 12, 2021, the 5^th Circuit affirmed its initial stay, holding that petitioners met all four factors to establish the need for further stay, and ordered OSHA to take no further steps to implement or enforce the ETS pending adequate judicial review of the request for permanent injunction.

Given the number of legal challenges in multiple federal jurisdictions, a “multi-circuit lottery” occurred on November 16, wherein the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeal was assigned to hear the consolidated cases. Just over a month later (after briefing by the parties), on December 17, 2021, the 6^th Circuit issued an order dissolving the 5^th Circuit’s stay, finding, among other things, that OSHA’s statutory mission to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for workers gives the agency broad authority to promulgate standards to meet this mission, including the authority to address viruses and infectious diseases in the workplace.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

While the case is expected to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”), there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to review the decision or, if the Supreme Court does grant certiorari, that it will overturn the 6^th Circuit’s decision. Moreover, OSHA intends to move forward with implementing the ETS unless or until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Accordingly, if they have not already done so, covered employers are encouraged to begin developing their written policies, notifying their employees whether they will be expected to be fully vaccinated by February 9, 2022 (if the employer is not implementing a testing option), or communicating how their testing option will work beginning on February 9, 2022, for those who are allowing a testing option.

____________________________________

This email is a service to our clients and friends. It is designed only to give general information on the developments actually covered. It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of recent developments in the law, treat exhaustively the subjects covered, provide legal advice, or render a legal opinion.

IRS Proposes Permanent 30-day Extension to ACA Reporting Deadline

Posted on November 30, 2021November 30, 2021 by Stacy Barrow

On November 22, 2021, the IRS filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) that among other things, provides for an automatic 30-day extension of the deadline for applicable large employers (“ALEs”) to furnish annual Forms 1095-C to individuals for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2021. Further, the Proposed Rule allows ALEs to voluntarily adopt this extension for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2020, which means this would apply to the calendar year 2021 Forms 1095-C, which are due in 2022.

Generally, the deadline is January 31 each year, and current regulations allow the IRS to grant an extension of time of up to 30 days to furnish Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals for good cause shown; however, recognizing the current January 31 deadline is difficult to meet, the Proposed Rule eliminates the good cause shown standard and simply allows for an automatic 30-day extension to March 2, 2022. In years where the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the forms are due the next business day.

The deadline to file the Forms 1094-B or C and 1095-B or C with the IRS are not extended and will remain February 28 for paper filings and March 31 if filed electronically, though pursuant to current regulations, companies may receive an automatic 30-day extension of time to file the forms with the IRS by submitting Form 8809, Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns, on or before the due date for filing the forms.

Additionally, because the penalty for the individual mandate is currently $0, for any calendar year in which it remains $0, the Proposed Rule provides relief (consistent with relief provided for tax years 2019 and 2020) from furnishing Forms 1095-B to individuals, if the responsible reporting entity:

Posts a clear and conspicuous notice in location on its website that is reasonably accessible to individuals stating that individuals may receive a copy of their 1095-B upon request, accompanied by an email address, phone number and a physical address the request can be sent;
Furnish an individual with a Form 1095-B within 30 days of a request; and
Retain the notice in the same location of its website until October 15 – or the first business day following October 15 if October 15 falls on a weekend or holiday – of the next calendar year. This would be October 15, 2023 for the tax year 2021 Form 1095-B.

The website notice must be written in plain, non-technical terms and with letters of a font size large enough, including any visual clues or graphical figures, to call a viewer’s attention that the information pertains to tax statements reporting that individuals had health coverage. Per the IRS a statement or link on the company’s main page reading “Tax Information”, which takes users to a secondary page that includes a statement in capital letters such as “IMPORTANT HEALTH COVERAGE TAX DOCUMENTS”, would meet this requirement. This relief from providing the B-series forms typically applies to insurance companies (who are required to file and furnish Forms 1095-B to participants in their fully insured plans), non-ALEs with self-insured plans, and ALEs who provide coverage under a self-insured plan to individuals who were not full-time employees during any part of the year (e.g., part-time employees, or retirees or COBRA participants in the year following retirement or termination of employment).

ALEs are still required to furnish Form 1095-C to their full-time employees. They must also complete Part III if the employee is enrolled in self-insured coverage. Further, the relief from furnishing Form 1095-B does not extend to IRS reporting. Forms 1095-B must still be submitted to the IRS, as applicable.

Finally, consistent with Notice 2020-76, per the Proposed Rule, the IRS intends to eliminate the good faith effort to comply relief that was in effect from tax years 2015-2020. The good-faith effort to comply provided reporting entities relief from accuracy-related penalties if they could show a good faith effort to comply. However, for the calendar year 2021 reporting and beyond, reporting entities will no longer have this relief available and must ensure accurate information is reported. Employers who are penalized for accuracy-related errors may have an opportunity to appeal under the “reasonable cause” standard, which is stricter than the good faith standard.

Conclusion

Based on the Proposed Rule, ALEs have until March 2, 2022, to furnish Forms 1095-C to individuals, but still must meet the February 28 (paper filing) or March 31, 2022 (electronic filing) deadlines to file Forms 1095-C with the IRS. Moreover, as long as the individual mandate penalty remains $0, insurance carriers, non-ALEs with self-funded plans, and ALEs with self-funded plans who provide coverage to part-time employees or non-employees, are not required to furnish Forms 1095-B to individuals if they meet the requirements for posting information regarding how individuals may receive copies of their Form 1095-B.

Further, because there is no longer good-faith relief from reporting errors, it is important for employers to review the Forms 1094-B or C or 1095-C before they are filed with the IRS to ensure information is accurate and correct any inaccurate information as soon as possible after discovery of the error.

______________________________________

About the Authors. This alert was prepared by Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP, a national law firm with recognized experts on ERISA-governed and non-ERISA-governed retirement and welfare plans, executive compensation, and employment law. Contact Stacy Barrow or Nicole Quinn-Gato at sbarrow@marbarlaw.com or nquinngato@marbarlaw.com.

The information provided in this alert is not, is not intended to be, and shall not be construed to be, either the provision of legal advice or an offer to provide legal services, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of the agency, our lawyers, or our clients. This is not legal advice. No client-lawyer relationship between you and our lawyers is or may be created by your use of this information. Rather, the content is intended as a general overview of the subject matter covered. This agency and Marathas Barrow Weatherhead Lent LLP are not obligated to provide updates on the information presented herein. Those reading this alert are encouraged to seek direct counsel on legal questions.