C.F.R.
»
Title 29
» CHAPTER XXV—EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—DEFINITIONS AND COVERAGE UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 › PART 2510—DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN SUBCHAPTERS C, D, E, F, G, AND L OF THIS CHAPTER
(a) In general. The term “plan administrator” or “administrator” means the person specifically so designated by the terms of the instrument under which the plan is operated. If an administrator is not so designated, the plan administrator is the plan sponsor, as defined in section 3(16)(B) of ERISA.
(b) In the case of a self-insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, as defined in § 2590.715-2713A(a) of this chapter, if the eligible organization provides a copy of the self-certification of its objection to administering or funding any contraceptive benefits in accordance with § 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter to a third party administrator, the self-certification shall be an instrument under which the plan is operated, shall be treated as a designation of the third party administrator as the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds, and shall supersede any earlier designation. If, instead, the eligible organization notifies the Secretary of Health and Human Services of its objection to administering or funding any contraceptive benefits in accordance with § 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, the Department of Labor, working with the Department of Health and Human Services, shall separately provide notification to each third party administrator that such third party administrator shall be the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds, with respect to benefits for contraceptive services that the third party administrator would otherwise manage. Such notification from the Department of Labor shall be an instrument under which the plan is operated and shall supersede any earlier designation.
(c) A third party administrator that becomes a plan administrator pursuant to this section shall be responsible for—
(1) Complying with section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13) (as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA) and § 2590.715-2713 of this chapter with respect to coverage of contraceptive services. To the extent the plan contracts with different third party administrators for different classifications of benefits (such as prescription drug benefits versus inpatient and outpatient benefits), each third party administrator is responsible for providing contraceptive coverage that complies with section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA) and § 2590.715-2713 of this chapter with respect to the classification or classifications of benefits subject to its contract.
(2) Establishing and operating a procedure for determining such claims for contraceptive services in accordance with § 2560.503-1 of this chapter.
(3) Complying with disclosure and other requirements applicable to group health plans under Title I of ERISA with respect to such benefits.
[78 FR 39894, July 2, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 51099, Aug. 27, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Priests for Life v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 4× “See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16 (b). They argue that the regulations thus put them in the position of facilitating the provision of contraceptives by authorizing the TPAs to take actions they previously could not have taken.”
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, 6 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (D. Colo. 2013).
· cites it 6× “The Court notes that the Final Rules could be construed to require an eligible organization to contract with a third party administrator that is willing to act as an ERISA plan administrator and claim administrator and take on all of the obligations set forth in 29 C.F.R. §…”
Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, 786 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16 (b). (What a mouthful!) Notre Dame treats this regulation as having made its mailing of the certification form to its third- party administrator (Meritain) the cause of the provision of contraceptive services to its employees in violation of its re-…”
Grace Schs. v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, 801 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 3× “3d at 552–53 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16 ). Notre Dame interpreted that regulation as if its mailing of the Form 700 to its insurer and its third-party administrator were the cause of the provision of contraceptive services to its employees and students, in violation of its…”
Univ. of Notre Dame v. Kathleen Sebelius, 743 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16 . Notre Dame treats this regulation as making its mailing the certification form to its third-party administrator the cause of the provision of contraceptive services to its employees, in violation of its religious beliefs.”
Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16 (b). Form 700 authorizes the TPA to “provide or arrange payments for contraceptive services” and requires the TPA to provide separate notice regarding those services to participants and beneficiaries enrolled in the religious organization’s group health…”
Priests for Life v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
“9815 -2713A(b)(2) (2013); 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16 (b) (2013)). Even evaluating the new regulations as supplemented in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wheaton College, die panel did not identify any scenario under which a TPA is obligated to provide contraceptive coverage…”
Wheaton Coll. v. Sylvia Burwell, 83 U.S.L.W. 3011 (2014).
“In addition, because Wheaton is materially indistinguishable from other nonprofits that object to the Government's accommodation, the issuance of an injunction in this case will presumably entitle hundreds or thousands of other objectors to the same remedy.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.