This decision raises the issue of benefit parity. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the workforce has shifted to being more or less remote. When employees move to different locations, or even countries, employers must consider other jurisdictions when obtaining employee benefits.
This is very difficult after all Roe v. Wade. Abortion is now illegal in at least eight states, and others are expected to follow or enact bans. According to Mr. Greenbaum, these “biased” laws have caused “many people to be confused and worried about their employers” who have not tried to look at the benefits of their health.
“First, they have to make an initial decision if they want to provide reproductive health services to their workers in countries that want to ban abortion,” he said. “Then, they need to figure out how to try to create a partnership for their employees in different locations by providing them with benefits during the trip.”
Read the following: Roe v. Wade: Business loans and D&O exposure are high
After the leak of Roe v. Wade In May, companies of all sizes pledged to increase employee benefits to cover the costs of abortion care. For some employers, this meant changing their benefit plans, changing their plan descriptions and benefits wording, and implementing new travel benefit plans.
“Many employers are looking to maintain the same health care coverage that they have been providing to full-time employees,” Greenbaum told Insurance Business. “But there are risks associated with this. Some governments consider that supporting migrant workers is contributing to the violation of local laws, so employers can be prosecuted, while facing boycotts or damage to reputation.
On Thursday, July 14, major retailer DICK’s Sporting Goods was hit with a civil rights complaint for offering travel benefits of “up to $4,000” to workers, while allegedly failing to provide comparable maternity care. According to a National Review report, the complaint was filed by America First Legal (AFL) and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging multiple violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on parental status. . .
This is just one example of the various consequences that employers may face if they choose to help employees access health care that is not available in their communities.
read more: Out-of-state abortions – these insurance companies will cover their employees…
Starting Roe v. Wade After the amendment, Greenbaum has raised many questions about possible changes to the employee benefit plan. He said: “For many of our clients, the first step is looking at: Is there a way we can protect our employees, and continue to provide them with access to reproductive health care? Once they decide to offer a benefit (usually a travel benefit), they need to consider the risk it poses to them as an employer, whether it’s the potential for litigation, discrimination, or concerns about reputational damage. .
“Human resources departments are often very clear when it comes to providing access to reproductive health care, but then the company will make a high-level decision as to whether the exposure they endure as a result of this is acceptable or not. Risk management in companies, which usually do not participate in profit decisions, they are becoming part of the picture.”
There is a big difference between self-insured plans, where employers purchase insurance from an insurance company, and self-directed plans, where employers provide health care directly to employees. Unlike fully insured plans that are governed by state insurance laws, self-insured plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This means that self-funded employers do not have to comply with state insurance laws.
“They’re looking at the issue very differently,” Greenbaum said. “When employers are old enough to be self-insured, they are more likely to change their policy [reproductive healthcare and abortion travel costs].”