| Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, ruling 5-4 that the requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) for closely held for-profit employers to provide contraceptive services violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). To provide some background, the PPACA mandates that non-grandfathered group health plans must cover women’s preventive services, including FDA-approved contraceptives, without any cost-sharing for the participant. On the contraceptive services, there is a limited exception for religious employers and their affiliates. However, that exception does not extend to private for-profit employers.In this case, various for-profit employers (including Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation), based on their owners’ sincere religious beliefs, objected to covering some or all contraceptive services mandated by PPACA. The main issue examined by the court was whether profit-making companies can be regarded as “individuals” who are able to hold and practice their own religious convictions — a privilege safeguarded by the RFRA. To put it simply, the RFRA generally forbids the government from heavily impinging upon a person’s faith, unless the government can prove that such infringement serves a vital state interest and is the most minimal restriction in advancing that interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the government did not provide enough evidence to show that requiring contraceptive coverage is the least restrictive way to ensure free access to birth control. Therefore, closely held for-profit companies are not obligated to provide contraceptive coverage without cost sharing. It is important to note that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate and should not be interpreted to mean that all insurance mandates (such as those for blood transfusions or vaccinations) automatically fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. In the end, the decision specifically pertains to “closely held corporations,” which are typically defined by state corporate laws and generally consist of privately owned companies controlled by a single family or a small group of investors, and whose stocks are not traded publicly. Thus, the ruling does not appear to apply broadly to other for-profit companies, such as publicly traded corporations; rather, it applies only to those that are closely held by families and limited investors with sincere religious beliefs. It remains unclear whether closely held corporations will be required to certify their religious objections; future guidance will hopefully address that issue. El Departamento de Cumplimiento de Beneficios de NFP continuará monitoreando estos desarrollos y brindará información adicional en Rincón del cumplimiento, nuestro boletín quincenal sobre cumplimiento de beneficios. |
agosto 22, 2025
How to Avoid Hidden Fees in Your Group Health Insurance Plan
Some 90% of employers cite the rising cost of group health insurance plan benefit costs as the number one reason their benefits strategy has…
ES 
EN