Requirements Related to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

Federal RegisterSep 23, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 54

[TD 10006]

RIN 1545-BQ29

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration

29 CFR Part 2590

RIN 1210-AC11

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Parts 146 and 147

[CMS-9902-F]

RIN 0938-AU93

Requirements Related to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act

AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION:

Final rules.

SUMMARY:

This document sets forth final rules amending regulations implementing the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) and adding new regulations implementing the nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) comparative analyses requirements under MHPAEA, as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA, 2021). Specifically, these final rules amend the existing NQTL standard to prohibit group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage from using NQTLs that place greater restrictions on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. As part of these changes, these final rules require plans and issuers to collect and evaluate relevant data in a manner reasonably designed to assess the impact of NQTLs on relevant outcomes related to access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits and to take reasonable action, as necessary, to address material differences in access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. These final rules also amend existing examples and add new examples on the application of the rules for NQTLs to clarify and illustrate the requirements of MHPAEA. Additionally, these final rules set forth the content requirements for NQTL comparative analyses and specify how plans and issuers must make these comparative analyses available to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively, the Departments), as well as to an applicable State authority, and to participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees. Finally, HHS finalizes regulatory amendments to implement the sunset provision for self-funded non-Federal governmental plan elections to opt out of compliance with MHPAEA, as adopted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA, 2023).

DATES:

Effective date:

These regulations are effective on November 22, 2024.

Applicability date:

See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for information on the applicability dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Fischer, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, at 202-317-5500; Beth Baum or David Sydlik, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, at 202-693-8335; David Mlawsky, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, at 410-786-6851.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

America continues to experience a mental health and substance use disorder crisis affecting people across all demographics, with marginalized communities disproportionately impacted.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the crisis, but its effects have continued post-pandemic.

From August 19, 2020, to February 1, 2021, the percentage of adults exhibiting symptoms of an anxiety or a depressive disorder rose from 36.4 percent to 41.5 percent.

In 2022, there were an estimated 15.4 million adults aged 18 or older in the United States with a serious mental illness and nearly one in four adults (59.3 million) living with any mental illness.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2022), Five key findings on mental health and substance use disorders by race/ethnicity,

https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/five-key-findings-on-mental-health-and-substance-use-disorders-by-race-ethnicity/.

American Psychological Association (2023), Stress in America

2023: A nation grappling with psychological impacts of collective trauma,

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/11/psychological-impacts-collective-trauma.

Vahratian, A., Blumberg, S.J., Terlizzi, E.P., Schiller, J.S. (2021), Symptoms of Anxiety or Depressive Disorder and Use of Mental Health Care Among Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, Aug. 2020-Feb. 2021, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:490-494,

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e2.htm.

SAMHSA (2023), Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP23-07-01-006, NSDUH Series H-58),

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2022-nsduh-annual-national-report.

Additionally, in 2022, nearly 54.6 million people aged 12 or older were classified as needing treatment for substance use, but only about 24 percent of those people received any treatment, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).

The unmet need for treatment for substance use disorders has been even greater among racial minorities and other marginalized communities. Between 2019 and 2021, median monthly overdose deaths among persons aged 10-19 years increased 109 percent; and deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl increased 182 percent.

In 2021, American Indian and Alaskan Native men aged 15-34 had an age-adjusted death rate caused by drug overdoses of 42 per 100,000 people, compared to 20.5 age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 people during the same time period in 2018.

Non-Hispanic Black or African American men aged 35-64 had an age-adjusted death rate caused by drug overdoses of 61.2 per 100,000 people; an increase from 30.6 deaths per 100,000 people during the same time period in 2018.

Ibid.

Tanz, L.J., Dinwiddie, A.T., Mattson, C.L., O'Donnell, J., Davis, N.L. (2022), Drug Overdose Deaths Among Persons Aged 10-19 Years—United States, July 2019-Dec. 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:1576-1582,

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7150a2.htm.

Han, B., Einstein, E.B., Jones, C.M., Cotto, J., Compton, W.M., Volkow, N.D. (2022), Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Drug Overdose Deaths in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic, JAMA Netw Open, 5(9):e2232314, DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.32314,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490498/.

Age-adjusted death rates are death rates that control for the effects of differences in population age distributions.

Ibid.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, employers highlighted that they have responded to the impact of the pandemic on the mental health and substance use disorder crisis by offering more comprehensive benefits, including

mental health support. According to a report published in 2021, “about three in four large employers and two in four small/medium employers report that they offer at least one type of mental health support for employees.”

In a recent survey, 87 percent of large employers stated that access to mental health care was a top priority, and another survey found that “the number of in-network behavioral health providers has increased by an average of 48 percent in 3 years among commercial health plans.”

Group health plans and health insurance issuers have taken steps to ensure mental health parity is reflected in their benefit designs and to educate participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees

about MHPAEA's requirements, by reaching out to members, expanding telehealth availability, expanding behavioral health provider networks, integrating behavioral health with physical health care, and working to reduce stigmatization of seeking treatment.

Coe, E., Cordina, J., Enomoto, K., Mandel, A., Stueland, J. (2021), National Surveys Reveal Disconnect Between Employees and Employers Around Mental Health Need, McKinsey & Company,

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare/our-insights/national-surveys-reveal-disconnect-between-employees-and-employers-around-mental-health-need.

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Health Insurance Providers Facilitate Broad Access to Mental Health Support (Aug. 2022),

https://ahiporg-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Mental-Health-Survey-July-2022-FINAL.pdf.

Consistent with the proposed rules, these final rules apply directly to group health plans or health insurance coverage offered by an issuer in connection with a group health plan, and apply to individual health insurance coverage by cross-reference through 45 CFR 147.160, which currently provides that the requirements of 45 CFR 146.136 apply to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the individual market in the same manner and to the same extent as to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in connection with a group health plan in the large group market. As noted later in this preamble, HHS is finalizing an amendment to 45 CFR 147.160 to also include a cross-reference to 45 CFR 146.137 to similarly extend the new comparative analysis requirements to individual health insurance coverage in the same manner and to the same extent as group health insurance coverage. For simplicity, this preamble generally refers only to the applicability to group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan and to participants and beneficiaries enrolled in such a plan or coverage, but references to participants and beneficiaries should also be considered to include enrollees in the individual market, unless otherwise specified.

Despite these efforts, disparities in coverage between mental health and substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits have grown. In the preamble to the proposed rules,

the Departments cited a 2019 Milliman report

that found a growing disparity in the utilization of out-of-network behavioral health care providers relative to out-of-network medical/surgical care providers. A recent study by RTI International

found that out-of-network use was 3.5 times higher for all behavioral health clinician office visits than for all out-of-network medical/surgical clinician office visits; in addition, the study noted that these disparities in out-of-network use for behavioral health office visits compared to medical/surgical office visits have remained large and, according to the study, are not fully attributable to behavioral health provider shortages. The study concluded that these results demonstrate the need for more robust parity enforcement.

88 FR 51552, 51554 (Aug. 3, 2023).

Melek, S., Davenport, S., Gray, T.J. (2019), Addiction and mental health vs. physical health: Widening disparities in network use and provider reimbursement, Milliman, 6,

https://assets.milliman.com/ektron/Addiction_and_mental_health_vs_physical_health_Widening_disparities_in_network_use_and_provider_reimbursement.pdf.

Mark, T.L., Parish, W. (2024), Behavioral health parity—Pervasive disparities in access to in-network care continue, RTI International,

https://dpjh8al9zd3a4.cloudfront.net/publication/behavioral-health-parity-pervasive-disparities-access-network-care-continue/fulltext.pdf.

RTI concluded that its analyses of the most recent, comprehensive private insurance claims data

reveal material differences in access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits, as reflected in much greater use of out-of-network providers. . . . These disparities indicate that behavioral health networks are clearly inadequate and signal potential noncompliance with the NQTL requirements of MHPAEA.

Id.

at 46.

These final rules aim to strengthen consumer protections consistent with MHPAEA's fundamental purpose—to ensure that individuals in group health plans or with group or individual health insurance coverage who seek treatment for covered mental health conditions or substance use disorders do not face greater burdens on access to benefits for those conditions or disorders than they would face when seeking coverage for the treatment of a medical condition or a surgical procedure.

As highlighted in the preamble to the proposed rules,

such barriers are particularly problematic when the benefits that the plan or issuer purports to make available and that individuals reasonably expect to be covered are not in fact covered. To the extent these barriers disproportionately limit access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits, such practices contravene MHPAEA's statutory language, which requires that the financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to mental health or substance use disorder benefits be “no more restrictive” than the predominant requirements and limitations applicable to substantially all medical/surgical benefits.

The Departments' enforcement efforts have shown that such barriers persist more than 15 years after MHPAEA's enactment.

These final rules are critical to addressing barriers to access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits.

In a floor statement, Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), one of the chief architects of MHPAEA, made the case for its passage on the grounds that “access to mental health services is one of the most important and most neglected civil rights issues facing the Nation. For too long, persons living with mental disorders have suffered from discriminatory treatment at all levels of society.” 153 Cong. Rec. S1864-5 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2007). Cf. H. Rept. 110-374, part 3 (Mar. 4, 2008),

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress/house-report/374

(“The purpose of H.R. 1424, the `Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007' is to have fairness and equity in the coverage of mental health and substance-related disorders vis-a-vis coverage for medical and surgical disorders.”).

88 FR 51552 (Aug. 3, 2023).

Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 9812(a)(3)(A), Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) section 712(a)(3)(A), and Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) section 2726(a)(3)(A).

See, e.g.,

2022 MHPAEA Report to Congress (Jan. 2022),

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/mental-health-parity/report-to-congress-2022-realizing-parity-reducing-stigma-and-raising-awareness.pdf

; 2023 MHPAEA Comparative Analysis Report to Congress (July 2023),

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/mental-health-parity/report-to-congress-2023-mhpaea-comparative-analysis.pdf.

The problems persist notwithstanding the Departments' unprecedented commitment to advance parity for mental health and substance use disorder benefits in recent years, as reflected through increased enforcement efforts and the Departments' work with interested parties to help them understand and comply with MHPAEA's requirements.

To promote compliance, the Departments have provided extensive guidance and compliance assistance materials, especially with respect to NQTLs,

yet disparities still persist.

More information on the Departments' enforcement efforts and guidance issued under MHPAEA is available at

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/mental-health-and-substance-use-disorder-parity/tools-and-resources

and

https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/mental-health-parity-addiction-equity.

As discussed in more detail later in this preamble, NQTLs are generally non-numerical limits on the scope or duration of treatment, such as prior authorization requirements, step therapy, and standards related to network composition.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA 1996), which required parity in aggregate

lifetime and annual dollar limits for mental health benefits and medical/surgical benefits for group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in connection with such plans.

These mental health parity provisions were codified in Code section 9812, ERISA section 712, and PHS Act section 2705.

Congress expanded on these efforts in 2008 with the enactment of MHPAEA,

which amended Code section 9812, ERISA section 712, and PHS Act section 2705 by adding requirements for plans and issuers related to financial requirements and treatment limitations and made further amendments to the existing mental health parity provisions, including provisions to apply the mental health parity requirements to substance use disorder benefits.

Public Law 104-204, 110 Stat. 2874 (Sept. 26, 1996). The Departments published interim final rules implementing MHPA 1996 at 62 FR 66932 (Dec. 22, 1997).

The Departments published interim final rules implementing MHPA 1996 at 62 FR 66932 (Dec. 22, 1997).

Sections 511 and 512 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 (Division C of Pub. L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765 (Oct. 3, 2008)).

The Affordable Care Act (ACA)

reorganized, amended, and added to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The ACA added section 715(a)(1) to ERISA and section 9815(a)(1) to the Code to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and to make them applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The PHS Act sections included by these references are sections 2701 through 2728. The ACA extended MHPAEA to apply to individual health insurance coverage and redesignated MHPAEA in the PHS Act as section 2726.

Additionally, section 1311(j) of the ACA applies PHS Act section 2726 to qualified health plans

in the same manner and to the same extent as it applies to health insurance issuers and group health plans. The ACA also included a requirement for coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, as a category of essential health benefits (EHB).

HHS' EHB regulations require health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets to comply with MHPAEA and its implementing regulations to satisfy the requirement to cover “mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment,” as part of EHB.

References to the Affordable Care Act or ACA include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, 123 Stat. 3028) enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) enacted on March 30, 2010.

The requirements of MHPAEA generally apply to both grandfathered and non-grandfathered health plans.

See

section 1251 of the ACA and its implementing regulations at 26 CFR 54.9815-1251, 29 CFR 2590.715-1251, and 45 CFR 147.140. Under section 1251 of the ACA, grandfathered health plans are exempted only from certain ACA requirements enacted in Subtitles A and C of Title I of the ACA. The provisions extending MHPAEA requirements to individual health insurance coverage and requiring that qualified health plans comply with MHPAEA are not included in these sections. However, because MHPAEA requirements apply to health insurance coverage offered in the small group market only through the requirement to provide EHB, which does not apply to grandfathered health plans, the requirements of MHPAEA do not apply to grandfathered health plans offered in the small group market.

A qualified health plan is a health insurance plan that is certified by a health insurance exchange that it meets certain minimum standards established under the ACA and described in subpart C of 45 CFR part 156.

See

45 CFR 155.20.

Section 1302 of the ACA requires non-grandfathered health plans in the individual and small group markets to cover EHB, which include items and services in the following ten benefit categories: (1) ambulatory patient services; (2) emergency services; (3) hospitalization; (4) maternity and newborn care; (5) mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; (6) prescription drugs; (7) rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; (8) laboratory services; (9) preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and (10) pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

See

45 CFR 156.115 for description of the benefits a health plan must provide to provide EHB.

Section 1302(b)(1)(E) of the ACA; 45 CFR 156.115(a)(3).

The Departments published a request for information soliciting comments on issues under MHPAEA

and subsequently issued interim final regulations to implement the requirements of MHPAEA.

After considering the comments, the Departments published the 2013 final regulations.

As detailed in the preamble to the proposed rules, in the years after the 2013 final regulations were published, the Departments provided extensive guidance and compliance assistance materials to the regulated community, State regulators, and other interested parties to facilitate the implementation and enforcement of MHPAEA, including the 2020 MHPAEA Self-Compliance Tool,

which provided a basic framework for plans and issuers to assess whether their NQTLs satisfy MHPAEA's parity requirements.

74 FR 19155 (Apr. 28, 2009).

75 FR 5410 (Feb. 2, 2010).

78 FR 68240 (Nov. 13, 2013).

See

Self-Compliance Tool for the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) (2020),

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/mental-health-parity/self-compliance-tool.pdf.

88 FR 51552, 51555-56 (Aug. 2, 2023).

The CAA, 2021 was enacted by Congress on December 27, 2020,

and amended MHPAEA, in part, by expressly requiring group health plans and health insurance issuers that provide both medical/surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits to perform and document comparative analyses of the design and application of NQTLs that apply to mental health or substance use disorder benefits. The statute also requires plans and issuers to make their analyses available to the Departments or applicable State authorities, upon request, effective February 10, 2021. Additionally, the CAA, 2021 sets forth a process by which the Departments must evaluate the requested NQTL comparative analyses and enforce the comparative analyses requirements and requires the Departments to submit annually to Congress and make publicly available a report summarizing the comparative analyses requested for review by the Departments.

Section 203 of title II of Division BB of the CAA, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020).

The report must state, in part, whether each plan or issuer that submitted a comparative analysis upon request submitted sufficient information to permit review; whether and why the Departments determined the plan or issuer is in compliance with MHPAEA; the specific information each plan or issuer needed to submit to allow for a review of its comparative analysis; and, for each plan or issuer the Departments determined not to be in compliance, specifications of the actions that the plan or issuer must take to come into compliance. See Code section 9812(a)(8)(B)(iv), ERISA section 712(a)(8)(B)(iv), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(8)(B)(iv).

To help plans and issuers comply with the amendments to MHPAEA made by the CAA, 2021, the Departments issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Implementation and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Part 45 (FAQs Part 45).

As detailed in the preamble to the proposed rules, these FAQs provided initial guidance to plans and issuers on these amendments to MHPAEA.

Additionally, as required

by the CAA, 2021, the Departments provided reports to Congress on the NQTL comparative analyses reviews conducted by the Departments.

These reports highlighted that nearly all of the comparative analyses reviewed by the Departments during the relevant time periods contained insufficient information to support a finding of compliance upon initial receipt and reflected common insufficiencies.

FAQs about Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Implementation and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Part 45 (Apr. 2, 2021),

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/aca-part-45.pdf

and

https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/downloads/mhpaea-faqs-part-45.pdf.

88 FR 51552, 51562 (Aug. 3, 2023).

Ibid.

Building on the lessons learned from implementing and enforcing MHPAEA, as well as the guidance provided in FAQs Part 45, on August 3, 2023, the Departments published proposed rules to amend existing MHPAEA regulations at 26 CFR 54.9812-1, 29 CFR 2590.712, and 45 CFR 146.136;

to add a proposed new regulation at 26 CFR 54.9812-2, 29 CFR 2590.712-1, and 45 CFR 146.137 in order to codify minimum standards for developing NQTL comparative analyses; and to codify HHS-only amendments to implement the sunset provision for self-funded non-Federal governmental plan elections to opt out of compliance with MHPAEA. On September 28, 2023, the Departments extended the comment period that was set to expire on October 2, 2023, by 15 days to October 17, 2023, to give interested parties additional time to review the proposed rules and submit comments.

88 FR 51552 (Aug. 3, 2023). On July 25, 2023, DOL, in collaboration with HHS and the Treasury, also issued Technical Release 2023-01P. The Technical Release set out principles and sought public comment to inform future guidance with respect to the application of the proposed data collection and evaluation requirements to NQTLs related to network composition and a potential time-limited enforcement safe harbor for plans and issuers that include data in their comparative analyses that demonstrate they meet or exceed all the thresholds identified in future guidance with respect to NQTLs related to network composition. The Departments encouraged interested parties to submit their comments consistent with the instructions contained in it separate from any comments they submitted in response to the proposed rules. The Departments are considering these comments separately and these final rules do not respond to those comments. Plans and issuers would be allowed adequate time to conform to any future guidance on the type, form, and manner of collection and evaluation for the relevant data required under the final rules.

88 FR 66728 (Sept. 28, 2023).

The Departments received 9,503 comments that were submitted during the comment period

in response to the proposed rules from a wide variety of interested parties, including private citizens; consumer and advocacy organizations; employers, employee organizations, and other plan sponsors; Federal, State, and local officials; health care providers and facilities and health systems; health insurance issuers; service providers, including managed behavioral health organizations (MBHOs), third-party administrators (TPAs), and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs); trade and professional associations; and researchers. Many commenters provided detailed feedback on multiple aspects of the proposed rules and in response to various specific comment solicitations included in the preamble to the proposed rules and the request for information.

The comment period for the proposed rules was extended by 15 days to October 17, 2023.

In general, many commenters supported the proposed rules, because they would formalize and, according to these commenters, provide greater clarity on what health plans and issuers must do to comply with MHPAEA. Some commenters highlighted that the existing rules were insufficient and that the proposed rules were timely and necessary to strengthen MHPAEA and ensure fair access to mental health and substance use disorder care. Commenters highlighted the importance of the proposed rules to participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees, including children, teens, young adults, and others living with mental health conditions and substance use disorders. Several other commenters, however, expressed either opposition or concern regarding the proposed rules. Several commenters stated that the proposed rules would increase health plan and issuer costs and reduce treatment quality. A few commenters recommended the Departments withdraw the proposed rules and initiate a new rulemaking process after additional input from interested parties.

After reviewing the comments received during the comment period, the Departments are finalizing the proposed rules, with some changes in response to comments as described in more detail later in this preamble, to ensure that participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees can access the mental health and substance use disorder care they need without facing greater restrictions than when accessing medical and surgical care, consistent with the fundamental purpose of MHPAEA. These final rules provide additional clarity to plans and issuers on how to comply with MHPAEA's requirements and, as a result, will strengthen the protections of MHPAEA. As highlighted earlier in this preamble, since the 2013 final regulations, the Departments repeatedly sought input from interested parties on MHPAEA's requirements; therefore, the Departments decline to withdraw the proposed rules or initiate a new rulemaking process after soliciting additional input from interested parties. As explained throughout this preamble, the amendments made by these final rules are faithful to MHPAEA's parity requirements and sensitive to the flexibility plans and issuers have in designing benefits for group health plans and health insurance coverage.

The Departments note that impacts on plan and issuer costs are discussed in more detail in the regulatory impact analysis, later in this preamble.

Among other things, these final rules:

• Make clear that MHPAEA requires that individuals will not face greater restrictions on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits.

• Reinforce that health plans and issuers cannot use NQTLs, such as prior authorization and other medical management techniques, standards related to network composition, or methodologies to determine out-of-network reimbursement rates, for mental health and substance use disorder benefits, that are more restrictive than the predominant NQTLs applied to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification.

• Require plans and issuers to collect and evaluate data and take reasonable action, as necessary, to address material differences in access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits, where the relevant data suggest that the NQTL contributes to material differences in access.

• Codify the requirement in MHPAEA, as amended by the CAA, 2021, that health plans and issuers conduct comparative analyses to measure the impact of NQTLs. This includes evaluating standards related to network composition, out-of-network reimbursement rates, and medical management and prior authorization NQTLs.

• Prohibit plans and issuers from using discriminatory information, evidence, sources, or standards that systematically disfavor or are specifically designed to disfavor access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits when designing NQTLs.

• Implement the sunset provision for self-funded non-Federal governmental plan elections to opt out of compliance with MHPAEA.

As a result, the Departments anticipate that these final rules will result in changes in network composition and medical management techniques related to mental health and substance use disorder care, more robust mental health and substance use disorder provider networks, and fewer

and less restrictive prior authorization requirements for individuals seeking mental health and substance use disorder care, as well as provide additional clarity and information needed for plans and issuers to meet their obligations under MHPAEA and for the Departments and States to enforce those obligations.

II. Overview of the Final Rules—Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS

The Departments are issuing these final rules to ensure that individuals with mental health conditions and substance use disorders can benefit from the full protections afforded to them under MHPAEA, while offering clear guidance to plans and issuers on how to comply with MHPAEA's requirements. These final rules amend certain provisions of existing MHPAEA regulations at 26 CFR 54.9812-1, 29 CFR 2590.712, and 45 CFR 146.136 to incorporate new and revised definitions of key terms, as well as to specify the steps that plans and issuers must take to meet their obligations under MHPAEA. These final rules also add new regulations at 26 CFR 54.9812-2, 29 CFR 2590.712-1, and 45 CFR 146.137 codifying minimum standards for developing NQTL comparative analyses to assess whether an NQTL, as written and in operation, complies with MHPAEA's requirements and setting forth the content elements of comparative analyses and the period for plans and issuers to respond to a request from the Departments to submit their comparative analyses. Additionally, in these final rules, HHS finalizes an amendment to 45 CFR 147.160 to specify that the final regulations at 45 CFR 146.137 apply to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the same manner and to the same extent that the regulations apply to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in connection with a group health plan in the large group market.

Consistent with the existing text at 45 CFR 147.160(a), HHS is also extending the same requirements and framework outlined in the amendments to 45 CFR 146.136 in these final rules to individual health insurance coverage in the same manner and to the same extent as the amendments that apply to group health insurance coverage. Finally, HHS is finalizing amendments to 45 CFR 146.180 to reflect the sunset of the election option for self-funded non-Federal governmental plans to opt out of compliance with MHPAEA, consistent with changes made by the CAA, 2023 to PHS Act section 2722(a)(2).

Non-grandfathered health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in connection with a group health plan in the small group market is required to comply with the requirements under PHS Act section 2726 to satisfy the requirement to provide coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, as part of EHB, and as such will also be required to comply with the comparative analysis requirements finalized under 45 CFR 146.137.

See

45 CFR 156.115(a)(3).

Division FF, title I, subtitle C, chapter 3, section 1321, Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459 (Dec. 29. 2022).

A. Amendments to Existing Regulations at 26 CFR 54.9812-1, 29 CFR 2590.712, and 45 CFR 146.136

1. Purpose Section—26 CFR 54.9812-1(a)(1), 29 CFR 2590.712(a)(1), and 45 CFR 146.136(a)(1)

In the preamble to the proposed rules, the Departments stated that the fundamental purpose of the MHPAEA statute, the 2013 final regulations, and the proposed rules is to ensure that participants and beneficiaries in a group health plan or in group health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer that offers mental health or substance use disorder benefits are not subject to greater restrictions when seeking those benefits than when seeking medical/surgical benefits under the terms of the plan or coverage. The Departments also stated that the fundamental purpose of MHPAEA should serve as the guiding principle for plans and issuers as they work to comply with the requirements of the law and its implementing regulations. Accordingly, the Departments proposed to add a purpose section to the regulations, specifying this fundamental purpose, and that MHPAEA and its implementing regulations should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with this purpose.

Many commenters supported the addition of the purpose section and the principles it addressed, including the goal of increasing access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits, to ensure equal treatment for mental health and substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits. A few commenters expressed opposition to the proposed purpose section, arguing that its language goes beyond the intent of MHPAEA (as Congress did not direct the Departments to provide a purpose in regulations, either initially or in later amendments).

The purpose section is important to highlight the overall goals of MHPAEA and to emphasize that the provisions of the 2013 final regulations, as amended by these final rules, should be interpreted in light of these goals. Congress provided authority to the Departments to “promulgate such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of” chapter 100 of the Code, part 7 of ERISA, and title XXVII of the PHS Act, including MHPAEA.

MHPAEA was enacted to address barriers to access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. These final rules implement MHPAEA's requirements and provide clarifying text to promote compliance with the law. The Departments are finalizing the purpose section as proposed, with minor changes in response to comments.

See

Code section 9833, ERISA section 734, and PHS Act section 2792.

Several commenters requested that the reference to “generally comparable” medical/surgical benefits in the proposed purpose section be revised to refer to the classification of benefits. These commenters noted that, consistent with the 2013 final regulations, evaluation of a plan's or issuer's MHPAEA compliance is assessed within the relevant classification of benefits, and that use of the term “comparable,” which is used in the 2013 final regulations and amendments made to MHPAEA by the CAA, 2021 with respect to requirements for NQTLs, is confusing and should be revised.

The Departments agree with commenters who noted that use of the term “comparable” can be confusing when used in this context, because compliance with the requirements for financial requirements, quantitative treatment limitations, and NQTLs has historically been determined within one of the six classifications of benefits.

Therefore, these final rules remove the reference to “generally comparable” medical/surgical benefits and instead specify that plans and issuers must not design or apply financial requirements and treatment limitations that impose a greater burden on access (that is, are more restrictive) to mental health or substance use disorder benefits under the plan or coverage than they impose on access to medical/surgical benefits in the same classification of benefits. The

Departments are finalizing the purpose section without any other substantive changes, but with a few minor clarifications to ensure that terms are used consistently with and accurately describe other parts of these final rules.

The six classifications of benefits listed at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(2)(ii)(A), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(2)(ii)(A), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(2)(ii)(A) include inpatient, in-network; inpatient, out-of-network; outpatient, in-network; outpatient, out-of-network; emergency care, and prescription drugs. Special rules for multi-tiered prescription drug benefits, multiple network tiers, and permissible sub-classifications for office visits, separate from other outpatient services, are addressed at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(3)(iii), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(3)(iii), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(3)(iii).

2. Meaning of Terms—26 CFR 54.9812-1(a)(2), 29 CFR 2590.712(a)(2), and 45 CFR 146.136(a)(2)

a. Medical/Surgical Benefits, Mental Health Benefits, and Substance Use Disorder Benefits

Under the statute and the 2013 final regulations, the term “medical/surgical benefits” means benefits for medical or surgical services as defined under the terms of the plan or health insurance coverage but does not include mental health or substance use disorder benefits. The 2013 final regulations further provide that the term must be defined in accordance with applicable Federal and State law, and that any condition defined by the plan or coverage as being or as not being a medical/surgical condition must be defined to be consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice (for example, the most current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or State guidelines).

The proposed rules generally retained the first sentence of the 2013 final regulations' definition of “medical/surgical benefits,”

but amended the definition to provide that, notwithstanding this first sentence, any condition or procedure defined by the plan or coverage as being or not being a medical condition or surgical procedure must be defined consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice (for example, the most current version of the ICD). Further, the proposed rules stated that, to the extent that generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice do not address whether a condition or procedure is a medical condition or surgical procedure, plans and issuers may define the condition or procedure as medical/surgical benefits, as long as such definitions are in accordance with applicable Federal and State law. The Departments also proposed to remove the reference to State guidelines in the definition of the term in the 2013 final regulations, both to make the definitions more consistent with the statute, and to minimize situations where differences between generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice and State guidelines create conflicts and improperly limit protections under MHPAEA.

Under the 2013 final regulations, the term “medical/surgical benefits” means benefits with respect to items or services for medical conditions or surgical procedures, as defined under the terms of the plan or health insurance coverage and in accordance with applicable Federal and State law, but does not include mental health or substance use disorder benefits. 26 CFR 54.9812-1(a), 29 CFR 2590.712(a), and 45 CFR 146.136(a).

The Departments also proposed to make similar changes to the definitions of “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” by amending the first sentence of each definition and removing the references to State guidelines, consistent with the changes described above for “medical/surgical benefits.”

For purposes of the requirement that any condition or disorder defined by the plan or coverage as being or not being a mental health condition must be defined to be consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice, the proposed rules stated that the plan's or coverage's definition must include all conditions covered under the plan or coverage, except for substance use disorders, that fall under any of the diagnostic categories listed in the mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders chapter (or equivalent chapter) of the most current version of the ICD or that are listed in the most current version of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Similarly, the proposed rules stated that the plan's or coverage's definition of “substance use disorder benefits” must include all disorders covered under the plan or coverage that fall under any of the diagnostic categories listed as a mental or behavioral disorder due to psychoactive substance use (or equivalent category) in the mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders chapter (or equivalent chapter) of the most current version of the ICD or that are listed as a Substance-Related and Addictive Disorder (or equivalent category) in the most current version of the DSM. The proposed rules solicited comments on whether any additional clarification is needed on how State law may interact with the proposed amended definitions of “medical/surgical benefits,” “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits.”

Consistent with the statute and the 2013 final regulations, the Departments note that references to “mental health and substance use disorder benefits” and “mental health or substance use disorder benefits” throughout these final rules are intended to have the same meaning as the terms “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” in combination.

In general, many commenters supported modifying these key definitions in existing MHPAEA regulations by specifying that, to be consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice, the terms of the plan or coverage must accord with appropriate chapters of the ICD or DSM. Many commenters generally supported requiring plans and issuers to follow the ICD or DSM, reasoning that both are generally accepted, peer-reviewed, nonprofit professional standards for diagnosis and descriptions of medical conditions, mental health conditions, and substance use disorders, and that following these authoritative and comprehensive diagnostic tools promotes uniform and standard application of MHPAEA to mental health conditions and substance use disorders. Several commenters noted that these changes would significantly improve clarity and would increase access to care, especially for intellectual and neurodevelopmental disorders, including dementia and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Another commenter recommended clarifying whether plans and issuers are required to consider both the ICD and the DSM in categorizing benefits for the purposes of the proposed rules. One commenter added that the Departments' proposal to align and clarify the definitions of “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” would ensure parity between the relevant terms and protect the application of MHPAEA for conditions and disorders recognized under independent standards of current medical practice. Another commenter expressing support reasoned that the proposed amendments would clearly specify how mental health conditions and substance use disorders must be defined for MHPAEA compliance purposes and minimize contradictions with State guidelines that now limit MHPAEA protections. The commenter also remarked that self-insured plans frequently include language from State-level mandated benefit requirements prevalent in the plan's geographic area that may not be MHPAEA-compliant.

Several commenters supported the removal of any reference to State guidelines to prevent situations in which contradictions between Federal and State guidelines would result in a loss of protections under MHPAEA. One commenter wrote that State law definitions often predate MHPAEA, may conflict with ICD and DSM standards, and should not be the operable standard, while others stated that State

guidelines should not be given precedence over Federal regulations to ensure that MHPAEA's protections are not subverted. However, one commenter urged that the Departments continue allowing plans and issuers to use State guidelines to inform the definitions of “medical/surgical benefits,” “mental health benefits,” and “substance use disorder benefits,” regardless of whether State law is consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice. The commenter noted that independent standards of medical practice vary and change over time and are not established with the same intents and purposes as State laws. The commenter also stated that States have been the traditional regulators of health insurance issuers when it comes to interpretive and enforcement matters, even for coverage issues subject to Federal law (such as the ACA and MHPAEA). Another commenter supported the clarification that, when the DSM or ICD does not indicate whether a condition or disorder is a mental health condition or substance use disorder, plans and issuers may define the condition or disorder in accordance with applicable Federal and State law.

In the proposed rules, the Departments noted that, to the extent applicable State law or generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice define a condition or disorder as a mental health condition or substance use disorder, plans and issuers must treat all benefits for the condition or disorder as mental health benefits or substance use disorder benefits, respectively, for purposes of analyzing parity and ensuring compliance with MHPAEA. To better understand interested parties' concerns in implementing this requirement, the Departments solicited comments on potential challenges in applying MHPAEA to all benefits for a mental health condition or substance use disorder where a specific item or service can be furnished for both medical conditions or surgical procedures and mental health conditions or substance use disorders, and whether additional clarifications or modifications to the proposed definitions are necessary.

In response to this comment solicitation, commenters identified several instances in which an individual with a mental health or substance use disorder diagnosis may need a particular treatment for that condition or disorder that may also be provided to treat a medical condition. For example, ASD

might be treated with speech and occupational therapy, which is also used to treat some medical conditions. Additionally, an eating disorder might require medical nutrition therapy, which could also be used to treat a medical condition (such as for the treatment of obesity or diabetes). Moreover, with respect to benefits for prescription drugs, a commenter noted that claims for reimbursement generally do not include diagnosis information. Some commenters explained that many specific prescription drugs are prescribed for mental health conditions and substance use disorders, as well as for medical/surgical conditions, and including diagnosis information would require a range of different entities and interested parties to change their current practice. Commenters also recommended several methods under which the rules could allow plans and issuers to characterize items and services as medical/surgical benefits, mental health benefits, or substance use disorder benefits. One commenter suggested items and services be characterized as either mental health benefits, substance use disorder benefits, or medical/surgical benefits based on the condition or disorder being treated. Similarly, another commenter suggested that items and services be characterized as mental health benefits or substance use disorder benefits when a claim's primary diagnosis is a mental health condition or substance use disorder, respectively, as that diagnosis is driving the treatment provided. Alternatively, several commenters suggested the rules could be aligned with existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance on MHPAEA compliance for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) so that plans and issuers could use a “reasonable method” for defining services commonly used to treat both medical conditions and mental health conditions or substance use disorders, for example, by using the plan's or issuer's annual claims experience to determine its spending on the service in question.

As discussed later in this preamble, the Departments stated in the proposed rules and reiterate in these final rules that ASD is a mental health condition for purposes of MHPAEA.

CMS, Frequently Asked Questions: Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Final Rule for Medicaid and CHIP (Oct. 11, 2017), Q4,

https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/faq101117.pdf.

After reviewing comments received from interested parties, the Departments are finalizing the definitions of “medical/surgical benefits,” “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” as proposed. While plans and issuers have some discretion in defining mental health benefits and substance use disorder benefits, this discretion must be exercised in a manner that comports with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice, and the definitions in these final rules include sufficient safeguards to protect against defining a benefit in a manner that could result in limitations on access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than those applicable to medical/surgical benefits. Further, while the Departments acknowledge the concern that independent standards of current medical practice change over time and may not have been established with the same intents and purposes as State law or State guidelines, such standards better ensure that plans and issuers define mental health conditions and substance use disorders in a manner consistent with the purposes of MHPAEA. The Departments agree with one commenter's concern that some State laws, in particular, might predate MHPAEA. As a result, such State laws might not offer the same safeguards to access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits as MHPAEA. The Departments also note that plans and issuers are required to ensure that the definitions used in the plan or coverage are consistent with the appropriate chapters of the most current version of either the ICD or the DSM.

Additionally, while States generally are the traditional regulators of health insurance issuers, with respect to MHPAEA, the Departments are not persuaded that this necessitates permitting plans and issuers to use definitions of “medical/surgical benefits,” “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” that are solely tied to applicable State law or guidelines. The definitions of “medical/surgical benefits,” “mental health benefits,” and “substance use disorder benefits” in these final rules preserve the ability of plans and issuers to use applicable Federal and State law to inform their definitions, but only to the extent that those laws are consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice.

The final rules also permit plans and issuers to use applicable Federal and State law to inform their definitions to the extent generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice do not address whether a condition or disorder is a medical condition, surgical procedure, mental health condition, or substance use disorder.

These final rules do not make any changes to the proposed definitions to specifically address how plans and

issuers should apply MHPAEA where a specific item or service may be used to treat both medical conditions or surgical procedures as well as mental health conditions or substance use disorders. These final rules, like the proposed rules and the 2013 final regulations, require plans and issuers to continue to characterize items and services as medical/surgical benefits, mental health benefits, or substance use disorder benefits based on the condition or disorder being treated. This interpretation is the most appropriate reading of the definitions of medical/surgical benefits, mental health benefits, and substance use disorder benefits, consistent with the statute and the purpose of MHPAEA. The Departments note that the existing CMS mental health and substance use disorder parity guidance for Medicaid and CHIP identified by several commenters addresses long-term services and supports provided through Medicaid and CHIP, not items and services covered by group health plans and health insurance coverage. The Departments reiterate that, if a plan (or coverage) defines a condition or disorder as a mental health condition or substance use disorder, plans and issuers subject to these final rules must treat all benefits for the condition or disorder as mental health benefits or substance use disorder benefits, respectively, for purposes of compliance with MHPAEA. The Departments decline to adopt the alternative methods suggested by commenters that plans and issuers might use to characterize items and services as medical/surgical benefits, mental health benefits, or substance use disorder benefits, as they may be insufficient to ensure consistency with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice and in accordance with applicable State and Federal law. Furthermore, while the Departments acknowledge the particular challenges with respect to prescription drug benefits due to the lack of diagnostic information on claims for reimbursement, these final rules, similar to the 2013 final regulations, provide plans and issuers enough flexibility to make decisions about how to classify items and services, including prescription drugs, as either mental health benefits, substance use disorder benefits, or medical/surgical benefits.

To provide guidance to plans and issuers on how to ensure that they define benefits consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice, the proposed rules proposed separate definitions of the ICD and DSM. Specifically, the Departments proposed that the ICD would be defined as the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases adopted by HHS through 45 CFR 162.1002 or successor regulations, and the DSM would be defined as the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The proposed definitions also specified, for purposes of the definition, which version of the ICD or DSM is the most current as of a particular date. This was intended to provide clarity on when a plan or issuer would be required to begin to rely on a new version of the ICD or DSM after it is released and allow sufficient time after the adoption of an updated version of the ICD or DSM for a plan or issuer to update the terms of its plan or coverage to be consistent with any changes made from the previous version. The proposed definitions stated that the most current version of the ICD or DSM, respectively, would be the version applicable no earlier than the date that is 1 year before the first day of the applicable plan year; however, the proposed rules would permit the use of an updated version before the plan or issuer is required to use it. Finally, in recognition of the fact that future versions of the ICD or DSM may include revisions to the categories of conditions or disorders or chapters listed in the proposed amended definitions for “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits,” the proposed amended definitions referred to “equivalent categories” and “equivalent chapters.”

The Departments received several comments on the proposed definitions of the terms “ICD” and “DSM,” with some commenters suggesting alternatives to the language identifying the most current versions of the DSM and ICD. One commenter suggested specifying that if a new version of the DSM or ICD is published in the middle of a plan year, then plans and issuers must use the updated version by the start of the next plan year. One commenter suggested that the most current version of an independent standard should encompass any version commonly in use among providers, and any version used in the most recent claims experience available to plans and issuers.

The Departments are finalizing the definition of “ICD” as proposed, with clarifications with respect to the most current version of the ICD. Specifically, under these final rules, the most current version of the ICD as of November 22, 2024, the effective date of these final rules, is the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification adopted for the period beginning on October 1, 2015, through HHS regulations at 45 CFR 162.1002 (or successor regulations).

Any subsequent version of the ICD adopted through 45 CFR 162.1002 (or successor regulations) after November 22, 2024, will be considered the most current version beginning on the first day of the plan year that is one year after the date the subsequent version is adopted.

These HHS regulations implement section 212 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 by setting compliance dates for the 10th Revision of the ICD for diagnosis and procedure coding.

The Departments are also finalizing the definition of “DSM” as proposed, with similar clarifications, which note that the most current version as of November 22, 2024, the effective date of these final rules, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision published in March 2022. A subsequent version of the DSM published after November 22, 2024, will be considered the most current version beginning on the first day of the plan year that is one year after the date the subsequent version is published (as the DSM is published, rather than made applicable). Consistent with this clarification, if a new version of the DSM is published in the middle of a plan year, plans and issuers will have at least one full year before they are required to use the updated version with respect to a plan year. For example, if a new version of the DSM is published on August 1, 2025, for a calendar year plan, that version of the DSM would be the most current version with respect to the plan year beginning on January 1, 2027.

It is important to provide specificity with regard to the relevant versions of the ICD and DSM instead of allowing the use of multiple versions, as suggested by commenters, to ensure that plans and issuers do not select a version that restricts access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits in a manner that is more restrictive than access to medical/surgical benefits. Because the Departments understand that the ICD and DSM are both broadly utilized by providers and facilities, as well as plans and issuers, and were referenced in the 2013 final regulations, these final rules continue to rely on such standards.

Finally, the preamble to the proposed rules noted that interested parties requested that the Departments confirm whether specific conditions are mental health conditions for purposes of MHPAEA. Consistent with the 2013 final regulations and section 13007 of

the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act),

the Departments confirmed in the proposed rules that eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge-eating disorder, are mental health conditions under generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice.

Similarly, the proposed rules made clear that, for purposes of MHPAEA, ASD is a mental health condition under generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice.

Therefore, benefits for these disorders are considered mental health benefits, and subject to the protections of MHPAEA and its implementing regulations, including these final rules.

Public Law 114-255, 130 Stat. 1033 (Dec. 13, 2016). Section 13007 of the Cures Act states that, if a plan or an issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage provides coverage for eating disorder benefits, including residential treatment, such group health plan or health insurance issuer shall provide such benefits consistent with the requirements of MHPAEA.

See, e.g.,

DSM Disorders (5th ed.), Section II: Diagnostic Criteria and Codes, Feeding and Eating Disorders; ICD-10, Chapter V: Mental and behavioral disorders, Code F50: Eating disorders.

DSM (5th ed.), Section II: Diagnostic Criteria and Codes, Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The Departments also solicited comments on other specific mental health conditions or substance use disorders that may warrant additional clarification for purposes of analyzing parity and ensuring compliance with MHPAEA. The Departments received only a few comments in response, including a request to clarify whether gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. Because the most current versions of both the ICD and DSM include gender dysphoria as a mental health condition as of the time of the issuance of these final rules, benefits for this condition are currently subject to the protections of MHPAEA and its implementing regulations, consistent with the framework described earlier in this preamble.

DSM (5th ed.), Section II: Diagnostic Criteria and Codes, Gender Dysphoria; ICD-10, Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders, Code F64: Gender identity disorders.

b. Processes, Strategies, Evidentiary Standards, and Factors

The proposed rules included proposed new definitions of terms used in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of the 2013 final regulations, which states that a plan or issuer may not impose an NQTL with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification unless, under the terms of the plan (or health insurance coverage) as written and in operation, any “processes,” “strategies,” “evidentiary standards,” or other “factors” used in applying the NQTL to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in the classification are comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than, those used in applying the limitation with respect to medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. These terms and the corresponding standard were incorporated into MHPAEA's statutory language in the amendments made by the CAA, 2021.

Because the Departments heard from interested parties prior to the issuance of the proposed rules that it can be difficult to determine what constitute relevant processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors, the Departments proposed definitions of these terms and included an illustration of the interaction of the definitions of these terms in the preamble to the proposed rules. The illustration described how a plan might rely on various combinations of processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors in designing and applying an NQTL, and gave examples of each term. The Departments also solicited comments on the proposed definitions, including any alternate definitions or additional clarifications that should be considered.

Code section 9812(a)(8)(A), ERISA section 712(a)(8)(A), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(8)(A).

In general, many commenters supported the proposed definitions of these key terms, which they described as foundational to the development of sufficient comparative analyses and necessary to hold plans and issuers accountable for discriminatory NQTLs. Several commenters described widespread misinterpretation by plans and issuers of the meaning of these key terms. Other commenters wrote that the proposed definitions would help clarify the difference between “factors” and “evidentiary standards,” and draw a clear distinction between “strategies” and “processes,” which relate, respectively, to plans' and issuers' approaches to the design of an NQTL, and to their application of an NQTL. Other commenters stated that the definitions of these terms should clearly distinguish between each component of a plan's or issuer's required comparative analysis and assign each step of the analysis to a particular component of the comparative analysis. Additionally, a commenter requested more specific examples of processes and evidentiary standards, and the differences between factors and evidentiary standards. One commenter stated that the proposed definitions are not coherent as applied to network contracting activities, development of reimbursement methodologies, or most other network composition NQTLs. This commenter claimed that there is no algorithmic approach to decision making that can be documented and requested the Departments to provide guidance on how the many activities involved in constructing provider networks and provider reimbursements across different plan types, service settings, and reimbursement methodologies should be categorized.

As stated in the preamble to the proposed rules, the proposed definitions for the terms “processes,” “strategies,” “evidentiary standards,” and “factors” are intended to further clarify how to properly apply and distinguish between these terms, and to help facilitate proper comparisons between the design and application of NQTLs to medical/surgical benefits and mental health and substance use disorder benefits in the same classification, compliance with the requirements related to NQTLs, and the development of sufficient comparative analyses, as required under the CAA, 2021 and these final rules. The definitions in these final rules improve clarity and add specificity to the terms used in MHPAEA, as amended by the CAA, 2021, to reduce misinterpretations, and are consistent with the requirements in these final rules that set forth the manner in which plans and issuers are required to perform and document comparative analyses, discussed later in this preamble. The Departments also provide additional guidance on how plans and issuers must comply with the provisions of these final rules with respect to NQTLs related to network composition,

later in this preamble.

The term “NQTLs related to network composition” generally refers to the NQTLs listed in 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii)(D), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(D), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii)(D) of these final rules: standards related to network composition, including but not limited to standards for provider and facility admission to participate in a network or for continued network participation, including methods for determining reimbursement rates, credentialing standards, and procedures for ensuring the network includes an adequate number of each category of provider and facility to provide services under the plan or coverage.

The Departments note that nothing in these final rules requires an “algorithmic” decision making process; however, plans and issuers must perform and document their comparative analyses as required under 26 CFR 54.9812-2, 29 CFR 2590.712-1, and 45 CFR 146.137 to show that the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used in designing or applying an NQTL to mental health and substance use

disorder benefits, as written and in operation, are comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than, the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used in designing or applying the NQTL to medical/surgical benefits in the relevant classification. Additionally, anything used by a plan or issuer to design or apply an NQTL should be considered a process, strategy, evidentiary standard, or factor (or information, evidence, sources, or standards on which a factor or evidentiary standard is based), consistent with the Departments' broad interpretation of these terms.

Under the proposed rules, the Departments proposed that evidentiary standards generally would not be considered factors, but instead would be considered or relied upon in designing or applying a factor. The Departments noted that, although the framework established in the 2013 final regulations treated the terms within the phrase “processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors” as having overlapping meanings (and the term “other factors” was utilized as a catch-all), the CAA, 2021 added to MHPAEA other references to factors and evidentiary standards that indicate Congress meant to distinguish between them.

The Departments requested comments on this approach to defining evidentiary standards separately from factors, including whether there are any circumstances under which an evidentiary standard should also be considered a factor under the framework outlined in the proposed rules, but did not receive any specific comments on this issue. Therefore, under these final rules, consistent with the proposed rules, evidentiary standards are not considered to be factors.

The preamble to the proposed rules noted that, for example, Code section 9812(a)(8)(A)(iii), ERISA section 712(a)(8)(A)(iii), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(8)(A)(iii) refer to the evidentiary standards

that are used for

the factors to determine that an NQTL will apply to benefits, and those provisions go on to distinguish between factors and any other sources or evidence relied upon to design or apply an NQTL.

See

88 FR 51552, 51567 (Aug. 3, 2023).

The proposed rules provided that the term “evidentiary standards” would mean any evidence, sources, or standards that a plan or issuer considered or relied upon in designing or applying a factor with respect to an NQTL, including specific benchmarks or thresholds. The proposed definition further provides that evidentiary standards may be empirical, statistical, or clinical in nature, and include sources acquired or originating from an objective third party, such as recognized medical literature, professional standards and protocols (which may include comparative effectiveness studies and clinical trials), published research studies, payment rates for items and services (such as publicly available databases of the “usual, customary, and reasonable” rates paid for items and services), and clinical treatment guidelines. The proposed definition also provides that evidentiary standards would include internal plan or issuer data, such as claims or utilization data or criteria for assuring a sufficient mix and number of network providers, and benchmarks or thresholds, such as measures of excessive utilization, cost levels, time or distance standards, or network participation percentage thresholds.

One commenter recommended not including specific benchmarks or thresholds and professional standards and protocols in the definition of the term “evidentiary standards.” The commenter noted that many plans and issuers do not define their evidentiary standards numerically and that finalizing the definition as proposed could require plans and issuers to do so, thereby compelling plans and issuers not to use relevant, critical data in the development of their NQTLs. The commenter also remarked that including professional standards and protocols in the definition would require plans and issuers to incorporate potentially unproven medical guidance as a standard to dictate mental health or substance use disorder benefits, which could override common medical management practices. The commenter added that, if the reference to professional standards and protocols is retained, the Departments should clarify that the definition of “evidentiary standards” does not imply that all professional standards and protocols must be referenced or that benchmarks or thresholds are required to be applied to professional standards and protocols.

The Departments are finalizing the definition of “evidentiary standards” as proposed. The definition is consistent with the use of the term by Congress in the amendments made to MHPAEA by the CAA, 2021. The definition of the term “evidentiary standards” does not require plans and issuers to define their evidentiary standards numerically, nor does it imply that all professional standards and protocols must be referenced or that benchmarks or thresholds are required to be applied to professional standards and protocols (for example, where the standards are qualitative in nature). However, to the extent these types of evidentiary standards are used to design or apply an NQTL, they must be analyzed for compliance with MHPAEA. The list of examples of evidentiary standards included in the definition is not intended to be exhaustive, nor are any of the evidentiary standards listed required to be considered or relied upon in designing or applying a factor with respect to an NQTL.

In the proposed rules, the Departments proposed that the definition of the term “factors” be read broadly, so that factors are all information, including processes and strategies (but not evidentiary standards), that a plan or issuer considered or relied upon to design an NQTL or to determine whether or how the NQTL applies to benefits under the plan or coverage. The Departments noted that by defining the term “factor” broadly, the Departments' intention was to capture any information used to design or apply an NQTL (other than evidentiary standards), regardless of whether a plan or issuer believes that information could also be characterized as a “process” or a “strategy,” as those terms were proposed to be defined. The Departments proposed that the term “factors” includes information (but not evidentiary standards) that the plan or issuer considered but rejected, consistent with previous guidance on MHPAEA in the context of the documents or plan information the Departments consider relevant to a compliance determination.

The proposed definition also provided examples of factors, which include, but are not limited to, provider discretion in determining diagnosis or type or length of treatment; clinical efficacy of any proposed treatment or service; licensing and accreditation of providers; claim types with a high percentage of fraud; quality measures; treatment outcomes; severity or chronicity of condition; variability in the cost of an episode of treatment; high cost growth; variability in cost and quality; elasticity of demand; and geographic location.

See

FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 31, Mental Health Parity Implementation, and Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act Implementation, Q9 (Apr. 20, 2016),

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/aca-part-31.pdf and https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/affordable-care-act-implementation-faqs-set-31

, which states that a plan must provide documents and plan information to a participant or beneficiary, or their authorized representative, including the specific underlying processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors (including, but not limited to, all evidence) considered by the plan (including factors that were relied upon and were rejected) in determining that the NQTL will apply to a particular mental health and substance use disorder benefit or any medical/surgical benefits within the benefit classification at issue.

With respect to the “broad” reading of the term “factor,” a commenter stated that the proposed definition subsumes “processes” and “strategies,” and suggested eliminating or clarifying this distinction with additional guidance. The commenter also remarked that the broad definition of “factor” would make the multiple steps in a comparative analysis less distinguishable, and the requirement that plans identify, define, and describe the use of every factor in the design or application of an NQTL unworkably expansive. A few commenters remarked that the breadth of the definition of “factor” makes it unclear how a plan or issuer would demonstrate that a factor is unbiased or not discriminatory for the purposes of the comparative analyses and recommended narrowing the definition of “factor” to distinguish it from evidentiary standards, processes, and strategies, and instead use the term to describe the basis for the plan's or issuer's application of an NQTL. Another commenter recommended not including information that the plan or issuer considered but rejected in the definition of factors, because it is not illustrative of the ultimate value of the mental health or substance use disorder benefit or the plan's or issuer's compliance with MHPAEA's NQTL standards. The commenter stated that the actual design of the benefit and how it translates to payments, denials, and reimbursement should substantiate whether the benefit design complies with parity requirements, without examining extraneous information on considerations early in the benefit's development process. A commenter suggested the Departments include an example of what the Departments would consider a complete definition of a factor and information about how to specify the weight assigned to factors.

The Departments are finalizing the definition of the term “factor” as proposed. The definition and list of examples of factors in the definition contained in these final rules are sufficiently detailed to provide context to plans and issuers in identifying factors, including by distinguishing evidentiary standards from factors and acknowledging that factors other than processes and strategies, which are types of factors, may exist. Under the 2013 final regulations, plans and issuers were permitted to utilize a wide array of factors in designing and applying their NQTLs to mental health and substance use disorder benefits provided they were comparable to, and applied no more stringently than, those utilized to design and apply NQTLs to medical/surgical benefits. Similarly, the CAA, 2021 did not limit what factors plans and issuers could use to design and apply their NQTLs, but instead required that these factors be identified and analyzed in the comparative analyses.

As noted in the preamble to the proposed rules, taking into account not only the factors that the plan or issuer relied upon, but also those that were considered but ultimately rejected in the definition of factors, is consistent with previous guidance on MHPAEA, namely because it is a factor that a plan or issuer uses in designing and applying an NQTL. The Departments recognize that the language used in the proposed rules, which included factors that were

considered

and rejected, rather than those that are

relied upon

and rejected, could be interpreted as including a broader set of information than prior guidance, which had interpreted “considered” to include “factors that were relied upon and were rejected.” The Departments did not intend to broaden the set of information included as a factor, and agree with the commenter who questioned the utility of providing information that was considered early in the design process but rejected. However, the Departments affirm that taking into account information that the plan or issuer relied upon and rejected in the definition of factors is necessary to analyze compliance with MHPAEA.

In the proposed rules, the Departments proposed to define “processes” and “strategies” as types of factors, and to clarify the differences between the two terms as they relate to the design and application of an NQTL. Specifically, the Departments proposed defining “processes” as relating to the application of an NQTL, while “strategies” would relate to the design of an NQTL. After review of the comments, the Departments continue to be of the view that the best read of the statutory text (as well as the 2013 final regulations) is that processes and strategies are types of factors, rather than components of a factor to be separately evaluated.

The Departments proposed to define “processes” to mean actions, steps, or procedures that a plan or issuer uses to apply an NQTL, including actions, steps or procedures established by the plan or issuer as requirements in order for a participant or beneficiary to access benefits, including through actions by a participant's or beneficiary's authorized representative or a provider or facility. Under the proposed rules, processes include, but are not limited to: prior authorization procedures, provider referral requirements, and the development and approval of a treatment plan. The proposed definition also provided that processes include the specific procedures used by staff or other representatives of a plan or issuer (or the service provider of a plan or issuer) to administer the application of NQTLs, such as how a panel of staff members applies the NQTL (including the qualifications of staff involved, number of staff members allocated, and time allocated), consultations with panels of experts in applying the NQTL, and reviewer discretion in adhering to criteria hierarchy when applying an NQTL.

A commenter expressed appreciation for the proposed rules' intent and requested the Departments to include more specific examples of “processes.” Another commenter stated that the proposed definition for “processes” is too broad and focuses only on the end result of access to benefits, which the commenter stated is inconsistent with the Departments' previous guidance and regulations, and recommended narrowing the definition to focus on the operational application of any requirements.

After reviewing comments, the Departments are finalizing the definition of the term “processes,” with minor changes so that the examples of processes more clearly illustrate the way the action, step, or procedure is used to apply an NQTL.

While the Departments decline to add examples to the definition, these modifications will add clarity to the definition in these final rules.

The Departments note that the final definition of the term does not focus only on the end result of access to benefits, but also includes the operational application of an NQTL, as evidenced by the framing of the definition in terms of actions, steps, or procedures used to apply an NQTL. For example, prior authorization processes include the procedures established by a plan or issuer for a review to determine how a specific request for prior authorization should be granted or denied. Concurrent review processes include the procedures established by a plan or issuer for a review to determine whether a specific request should be

granted or denied, such as when peer-to-peer review is required.

The Departments are also finalizing a non-substantive modification so that the definition more closely parallels the definition of “strategies.”

For example, these final rules clarify that provider referral requirements are processes if they are used to determine when and how a participant or beneficiary may access certain services. Similarly, the development and approval of a treatment plan are processes if they are used in a concurrent review process to determine whether a specific request should be granted or denied.

The proposed rules proposed to define “strategies” as practices, methods, or internal metrics that a plan or issuer considers, reviews, or uses to design an NQTL, and included examples of strategies. The proposed definition of strategies included the following examples: the development of the clinical rationale used in approving or denying benefits; deviation from generally accepted standards of care; the selection of information (such as from medical or clinical guidelines) deemed reasonably necessary to make a medical necessity determination; reliance on treatment guidelines or guidelines provided by third-party organizations; and rationales used in selecting and adopting certain threshold amounts, professional protocols, and fee schedules. The proposed definition of strategies also specifically included: the creation and composition of the staff or other representatives of a plan or issuer (or the service provider of a plan or issuer) that deliberates, or otherwise makes decisions, on the design of NQTLs, including the plan's or issuer's decisions related to qualifications of staff involved; number of staff members allocated, and time allocated; breadth of sources and evidence considered; consultations with panels of experts in designing the NQTL; and the composition of the panels used to design an NQTL.

One commenter supported the inclusion in the definition of “strategies” of practices that involve “deviations from generally accepted standards of care.” Several commenters also recommended that the Departments include actions to detect or prevent and prove fraud, waste, and abuse in the definitions of either or both “processes” and “strategies,” rather than including those actions as a stand-alone exception from the NQTL requirements in the final rules. Another commenter appreciated the clear distinction made in the proposed definitions of processes and strategies and stated that they would appreciate if these distinctions tracked with separate steps in the comparative analyses.

The content elements of comparative analyses are addressed later in this preamble.

The Departments are generally finalizing the definition of the term “strategies” with some minor changes to the examples to add specificity. The definition of the term “strategies” in these final rules includes examples of strategies used to design an NQTL, such as the method of determining whether and how to deviate from generally accepted standards of care in concurrent reviews; rationales used in selecting and adopting certain threshold amounts to apply an NQTL; professional standards and protocols to determine utilization management standards; and fee schedules used to determine provider reimbursement rates, used as part of an NQTL. The Departments note that, once a plan or issuer uses a strategy to design an NQTL, that design also may result in the establishment or use of processes to apply the NQTL.

While the Departments acknowledge comments suggesting that actions to detect or prevent and prove fraud, waste, and abuse be defined as either “processes” or “strategies,” and acknowledge that such actions certainly could constitute either processes or strategies (depending on whether the action is undertaken to design or apply the NQTL), the Departments decline to add a specific reference to actions to detect or prevent and prove fraud, waste, and abuse to the relevant definitions, as the proposed exception for standards to detect or prevent and prove fraud, waste, and abuse is not being finalized, as discussed later in this preamble.

However, the Departments are providing additional language to explain what constitutes a standard to detect or prevent and prove fraud and abuse (also referred to as “fraud and abuse measures”) later in this preamble and how such standards must comply with MHPAEA under these final rules.

The proposed rules referred to fraud, waste, and abuse. However, as explained later in this preamble, the Departments agree with commenters that the term “waste” can be construed in a manner that is overly broad. Thus, in these final rules, when discussing the exception in the proposed rules for NQTLs that are narrowly and reasonably designed to detect or prevent and prove fraud, waste, and abuse, while minimizing the impact on access to appropriate mental health and substance use disorder benefits, this preamble refers to “fraud, waste, and abuse measures.” When discussing provisions of this final rule related to carefully circumscribed measures reasonably and appropriately designed to detect or prevent and prove fraud and abuse, this preamble refers to “fraud and abuse measures.”

c. Treatment Limitations

The Departments proposed to amend the definition of “treatment limitations” to clarify that the illustrative list of NQTLs to which the definition refers is non-exhaustive and to amend the last sentence to state that a “complete” (rather than “permanent”) exclusion of all benefits for a particular condition or disorder is not a treatment limitation for purposes of the definition. In the preamble to the proposed rules, the Departments noted that, while NQTLs are generally defined as treatment limitations that are not expressed numerically, the application of an NQTL in a numerical way does not modify its nonquantitative character simply because the NQTL sometimes involves numerical standards, and such NQTLs would still be evaluated in accordance with the rules for NQTLs under the statute and implementing regulations.

Several commenters supported the Departments' amendment to the definition of “treatment limitation” to specify that “a complete exclusion of all benefits for a particular condition or disorder is not a treatment limitation for purposes of this definition,” rather than retaining the reference in the 2013 final regulations to a “permanent” exclusion. These commenters stated that the proposed definition more clearly specifies that a plan or issuer can exclude a particular condition or service without creating an NQTL, but that in doing so, the exclusion must be total. The commenters suggested the Departments include specific examples of permissible exclusions and impermissible exclusionary language. Other commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition of “treatment limitation” is too broad and argued that the proposed definition would lead to increased uncertainty in determining which common plan practices could constitute an NQTL. One commenter stated that if there is no comparable medical or surgical treatment limitation, there is nothing to compare a treatment limitation on a mental health or substance use disorder benefit to, and that therefore such a limitation on the mental health or substance use disorder benefit is not subject to parity requirements. Several commenters recommended adopting a consistent and exhaustive definition for determining whether a medical management technique is a treatment limitation.

The Departments are finalizing the definition of “treatment limitation” as proposed, with minor modifications to add an example of an NQTL. As reflected in the definition, medical management techniques are NQTLs if they limit the scope or duration of treatment. While the definition as amended is broad, plans and issuers have great latitude in the types of limitations that they may impose, and the Departments understand that plans and issuers do in fact impose a broad range of limitations on the scope or duration of treatment. In enacting MHPAEA and the amendments to MHPAEA contained in the CAA, 2021, Congress did not prohibit the use of these limitations for mental health and substance use disorder benefits, but

required that plans and issuers ensure that NQTLs satisfy the statutory requirements that (1) any treatment limitations imposed on mental health and substance use disorder benefits are no more restrictive than the predominant treatment limitations imposed on substantially all medical/surgical benefits; (2) that no treatment limitations be imposed only with respect to mental health and substance use disorder benefits; and (3) that plans and issuers perform and document comparative analyses of the design and application of NQTLs. Because of the broad range of treatment limitations that plans and issuers may impose, combined with the freedom that plans and issuers have to design their own unique limitations, the Departments cannot provide a comprehensive and exhaustive list of all limitations, as further explained later in this preamble.

The Departments note that if a plan or issuer applies a treatment limitation to mental health and substance use disorder benefits where medical/surgical benefits are not subject to a comparable treatment limitation in the same classification, the plan or issuer would violate MHPAEA because it must not apply separate treatment limitations only to mental health and substance use disorder benefits. Further, the Departments have stated that, if a plan or issuer provides any benefits for a mental health condition or substance use disorder but excludes benefits for items or services for that condition or disorder in a classification in which it provides medical/surgical benefits, such an exclusion of a benefit for a condition or disorder that is otherwise covered is a treatment limitation because it is a limit on the scope or duration of treatment offered.

While the Departments decline to provide additional examples of permissible exclusions and impermissible exclusionary language in these final rules, examples of such exclusions and language have been provided in guidance and in the Departments' reports to Congress.

See

75 FR 5410, 5413 (Feb. 2, 2010).

3. Nonquantitative Treatment Limitations—26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)

In the proposed rules, the Departments proposed changes designed to better ensure that plans and issuers do not design and implement NQTLs that impose greater restrictions on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. The Departments proposed to add requirements that apply to NQTLs with respect to mental health and substance use disorder benefits, to ensure that plans and issuers do not impose a greater burden on participants and beneficiaries accessing those benefits than the burden imposed on participants and beneficiaries accessing medical/surgical benefits, while preserving the ability of plans and issuers to impose NQTLs to the extent they are consistent with generally recognized independent professional medical or clinical standards or legitimate and narrowly designed standards related to fraud, waste, and abuse. Subject to those two narrow exceptions for those types of NQTLs, the proposed rules provided that plans and issuers would not be permitted to impose an NQTL on mental health or substance use disorder benefits unless they satisfied all of the following three requirements: (1) the NQTL is no more restrictive as applied to mental health and substance use disorder benefits than to medical/surgical benefits (also referred to as the no more restrictive requirement); (2) the plan or issuer satisfies requirements related to the design and application of the NQTL (also referred to as the design and application requirements); and (3) the plan or issuer collects, evaluates, and considers the impact of relevant data on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits relative to access to medical/surgical benefits; and subsequently takes reasonable action, as necessary, to address any material differences in access shown in the data to ensure compliance with MHPAEA (also referred to as the relevant data evaluation requirements).

Specifically, under the no more restrictive requirement, the proposed rules specified that a plan or issuer may not apply any NQTL to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification that is more restrictive, as written or in operation, than the predominant NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. This requirement was intended to ensure that the implementing regulations more closely mirrored the statutory language in Code section 9812(a)(3)(A), ERISA section 712(a)(3)(A), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(3)(A).

The proposed rules outlined a four-prong test for a plan or issuer to determine compliance with the no more restrictive requirement. Specifically, this provision would have required plans and issuers to determine: (1) the portion of plan payments for medical/surgical benefits subject to an NQTL in a classification; (2) whether the NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification; (3) if the NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification, the predominant variation of the NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification; and (4) whether the NQTL, as applied to mental health and substance use disorder benefits in the classification, is more restrictive than the predominant variation of the NQTL as applied to substantially all medical/surgical benefits.

The second proposed requirement for NQTLs, the design and application requirements, retained the requirements for NQTLs from the 2013 final regulations focused on the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used to apply an NQTL, with a proposed modification to better align the rules with the statute's focus on the design of an NQTL in addition to its application. In addition, the Departments proposed to prohibit plans and issuers from relying upon any factor or evidentiary standard if the information, evidence, sources, or standards on which the factor or evidentiary standard was based discriminates against mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits.

The third requirement for NQTLs under the proposed rules, the relevant data evaluation requirements, proposed to require plans and issuers to collect and evaluate relevant outcomes data and take reasonable action to address material differences in access between mental health and substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits as necessary to ensure compliance, in operation, with MHPAEA. This requirement also included a proposed special rule for NQTLs related to network composition.

The proposed rules stated that, if a plan or issuer fails to meet any of the three requirements under the proposed rules with respect to an NQTL in a classification, the NQTL would violate MHPAEA and, as a result, could not be imposed on mental health or substance use disorder benefits in the classification without changes to the terms of the plan or coverage, or the way the NQTL is designed or applied, to ensure compliance with MHPAEA.

The Departments proposed two limited exceptions to some of the requirements for NQTLs, consistent with the Departments' intention to avoid interference with a plan's or issuer's attempts to ensure that NQTLs imposed with respect to benefits for

treatment of mental health conditions or substance use disorders are consistent with generally accepted independent professional medical or clinical standards of care (also referred to as independent professional medical or clinical standards) or are narrowly and reasonably designed to detect or prevent and prove fraud, waste, and abuse, while minimizing the impact on access to appropriate mental health and substance use disorder benefits (also referred to as fraud, waste, and abuse measures). The Departments proposed to exempt NQTLs qualifying for the exception for independent professional medical or clinical standards from compliance with the no more restrictive requirement, the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards, and the relevant data evaluation requirements. The Departments proposed to exempt NQTLs qualifying for the exception for fraud, waste, and abuse measures from compliance with the no more restrictive requirement and the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards, but not the relevant data evaluation requirements.

Finally, the Departments proposed to make clear that a plan or issuer that has received a final determination of noncompliance under the comparative analysis review process established by the CAA, 2021, including a final determination of noncompliance based on failure to provide a sufficient comparative analysis, would also be in violation of the substantive requirements that apply to NQTLs under MHPAEA, as determined by the Departments. Upon such a determination, the proposed rules would permit the Departments to direct the plan or issuer to not impose the NQTL that is the subject of the comparative analysis, unless and until the plan or issuer can demonstrate compliance or take appropriate action to remedy the violation.

The Departments requested comments on all aspects of these proposed amendments, including the exceptions to the proposed rules regarding NQTLs. Many commenters expressed support for these provisions of the proposed rules as a whole, as a means of achieving increased access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits by targeting NQTLs that otherwise impede access. Other commenters expressed support for the proposed rules' enhanced specificity with respect to the requirements for imposing NQTLs, with one commenter also indicating that the proposals would help State insurance regulators better enforce MHPAEA and clarify plans' and issuers' compliance obligations.

However, other commenters expressed the view that these provisions of the proposed rules were complex, ambiguous, confusing, subject to interpretation, or difficult to operationalize, which they argued could lead to substantial uncertainty for plans and issuers attempting to comply. Commenters also stated that it may be impossible for plans or issuers to meet the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests as applied to NQTLs, leading them to eliminate necessary utilization management tools. Some commenters also indicated that these provisions of the proposed rules could lead to inconsistent application of NQTLs across plans administered by the same TPA or issuer, which could result in administrative complexity and cause confusion for consumers and providers. Other commenters highlighted that the proposed requirements would significantly increase the cost of administering plans and health insurance coverage. One commenter indicated that some plans might consider excluding all treatments or services for a particular mental health condition or substance use disorder as a result of the additional burdens imposed by the substantially all and predominant tests, if finalized as proposed. Some commenters also stated that the additional proposed requirements for NQTLs do not add value beyond distinctions already captured by the design and application requirements included in the 2013 final regulations, with some commenters stating those additional requirements go beyond MHPAEA's statutory requirements. Comments specific to each of the three requirements and two exceptions proposed at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i), (ii), and (iv); 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i), (ii), and (iv); and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i), (ii), and (iv) are discussed in greater detail later in this preamble.

The Departments acknowledge the concerns expressed by commenters and, in response to comments, the Departments are finalizing a modified framework that is still intended to prevent plans and issuers from designing and applying NQTLs that impose greater burdens on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits, while limiting uncertainty, increases in cost, operational difficulty, and unintended consequences. These final rules streamline the proposed rules' general requirements to eliminate redundancies and add clarity for plans and issuers in a manner that remains consistent with the statutory text of MHPAEA, while also ensuring participants and beneficiaries will not face greater restrictions on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits.

These final rules do not finalize the language of the proposed “no more restrictive” requirement, as discussed in more detail later in this preamble, and instead incorporate the statutory requirements of Code section 9812(a)(3)(A), ERISA section 712(a)(3)(A), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(3)(A) as the overall general rule for NQTLs in 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4). Specifically, these final rules state that, consistent with the fundamental purpose of MHPAEA, a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered by an issuer in connection with a group health plan) may not impose any NQTL with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification that is more restrictive, as written or in operation, than the predominant NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. However, as discussed later in this preamble, the Departments are declining to finalize the proposed four-prong test for the no more restrictive requirement, which was proposed to determine compliance with statutory requirements as they apply to NQTLs.

Rather, to demonstrate compliance with the no more restrictive requirement, which is now the general rule for NQTLs, a plan or issuer is required under these final rules to satisfy (1) the design and application requirements and (2) the relevant data evaluation requirements, each of which the Departments are finalizing with modifications, as discussed in more detail later in this preamble. Additionally, the Departments are not finalizing the exceptions set forth in the proposed rules, but have added language to these final rules to explain how plans and issuers should analyze and account for independent professional medical or clinical standards and fraud and abuse measures in designing and applying their NQTLs. Finally, the Departments are finalizing a provision providing that, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances, the Departments or an applicable State authority may direct a plan or issuer that has received a final determination of noncompliance under the comparative analysis review process

established by the CAA, 2021 to not apply an impermissible NQTL.

Code section 9812(a)(3)(A), ERISA section 712(a)(3)(A), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(3)(A).

a. Requirement That NQTLs Be No More Restrictive for Mental Health Benefits and Substance Use Disorder Benefits—26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)

Through the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests for NQTLs as part of the no more restrictive requirement, the Departments proposed to require plans and issuers to follow similar steps to those that apply when analyzing parity with respect to financial requirements or quantitative treatment limitations under the 2013 final regulations (referred to in this preamble as the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests). As noted in the proposed rules, the steps in the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests would have involved determining the portion of plan payments for medical/surgical benefits subject to an NQTL in a classification; whether the NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification; if the NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification, the predominant variation of the NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification; and whether the NQTL, as applied to mental health and substance use disorder benefits in the classification, is more restrictive than the predominant variation of the NQTL, as applied to substantially all medical/surgical benefits.

Many commenters generally supported application of the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests to NQTLs, with some indicating that the tests would provide additional clarity, eliminate subjectivity, assist regulators, and result in compliance improvements. Many of these commenters also stated that the statute clearly supports the tests, as it requires treatment limitations to be “no more restrictive” than the predominant treatment limitations that apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits. Other commenters generally opposed the inclusion of the substantially all and predominant tests for NQTLs as part of the no more restrictive requirement. Some of these commenters stated that the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests are a reversal of policy from the 2013 final regulations and are inconsistent with congressional intent, because Congress codified the design and application requirements from the 2013 final regulations in the CAA, 2021. These commenters highlighted that the Departments had stated previously that they understood NQTLs could not be easily quantified and that the Departments had not sufficiently explained their change in interpretation under the proposed rules.

Some commenters expressed general concerns that NQTLs are inherently unquantifiable, arguing that the proposal would result in unworkable standards or arbitrary outcomes that could prohibit plans and issuers from using evidence-based medical guidelines or other relevant factors specific to the item or service under consideration. Commenters also raised concerns that imposition of the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests on certain types of NQTLs that are not commonly utilized for medical/surgical benefits may lead to some types of legitimate NQTLs no longer being permitted with respect to mental health and substance use disorder benefits. Specifically, several of these commenters contended that the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, as proposed, would result in the elimination of plans' and issuers' ability to impose certain NQTLs with respect to mental health and substance use disorder benefits, such as step therapy, prior authorization, and concurrent review, which they posited would negatively impact the quality and cost of care. Some commenters also cited potential negative, unintended consequences of the application of the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, as proposed, including patient safety concerns; impacts on health outcomes, quality, and affordability; and a chilling effect on access improvements and innovation. Further, some commenters expressed concern with the increased costs associated with complying with the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, with some stating that this increased burden would not be offset by any resulting increase in access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits for participants and beneficiaries.

Several commenters expressed confusion as to how these tests, as proposed, would be applied in practice and highlighted the need for more detail. Specifically, some commenters stated that these proposed provisions lack clarity in how the tests apply to certain types of NQTLs (including those related to network composition), and the potential consequences of enforcement of these requirements. Many commenters provided specific comments and feedback on aspects of each part of the substantially all and predominant tests included in the proposed rules, as discussed later in this preamble, and highlighted ambiguities and challenges operationalizing the proposed quantitative testing requirements with respect to NQTLs.

Under the first prong of the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, plans and issuers would have been required to determine the portion of plan payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be subject to the NQTL based on the dollar amount of all plan payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be paid under the plan or coverage for the plan year (or the portion of the plan year after a change in benefits that affects the applicability of the NQTL). The proposed rules stated that, for purposes of this determination, any reasonable method could be used to determine the dollar amount expected to be paid under a plan for medical/surgical benefits.

The Departments received many comments on the proposed requirement that the plan or issuer determine the portion of plan payments for medical/surgical benefits expected to be subject to an NQTL in the benefit classification. Several commenters indicated that the determination of the dollar amount of all plan payments for medical/surgical benefits expected to be paid may be an inappropriate measure altogether because NQTLs like medical management, assessments related to medical necessity, experimental/investigational treatment exclusions, prior authorization requests, and provider network admission standards are not generally attached to claims. Some commenters highlighted that self-insured plan sponsors may face challenges in obtaining a complete and reliable set of plan-level claims data, and accordingly, would have limited data to use to assess individual NQTLs, or would incur additional costs.

After determining the portion of plan payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be subject to the NQTL, the Departments proposed that, under the second prong, plans and issuers would be required to determine whether the NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the classification, based on the dollar amount of all plan payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be paid under the plan for the plan year. Under the proposed rules, an NQTL would be considered to apply to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a

classification if it applies to at least two-thirds of all medical/surgical benefits in that classification. Under the proposed rules, whether the NQTL applies to at least two-thirds of all medical/surgical benefits would be determined without regard to whether the NQTL was triggered based on a particular factor or evidentiary standard.

The proposed rules further provided that if an NQTL does not apply to at least two-thirds of all medical/surgical benefits in a classification, that NQTL would not be permitted to be applied to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in that classification.

For example, if a plan or issuer applies a general exclusion for all benefits in a classification that are for experimental or investigative treatment, and defines experimental or investigative treatment to be treatments with less than a certain number of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating efficacy, under the proposed rules, the exclusion would be treated as applying to all of the benefits in the classification—not just those that may be subject to the general exclusion for experimental or investigative treatment because they lack the requisite number of peer-reviewed studies (that is, those that actually triggered the NQTL based on the evidentiary standard). 88 FR 51552, 51570 (Aug. 3, 2023).

The Departments received many comments regarding this prong of the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests. As mentioned earlier in this preamble, many commenters stated that, in practice, a numerical “substantially all” determination would be difficult to apply and assess for NQTLs for many reasons, including because they are often not quantifiable, and there are more medical/surgical items and services (and associated benefits) than there are mental health and substance use disorder items and services. Additionally, commenters highlighted that plans and issuers already experience difficulty in obtaining data from service providers and would have difficulty in determining which NQTLs apply to at least two-thirds of medical/surgical benefits in a classification. Some commenters predicted that, if the Departments finalize the substantially all and predominant tests as proposed, plans and issuers might increase the application of NQTLs to medical/surgical benefits to meet the two-thirds threshold.

Further, some commenters requested that the Departments specify and provide examples showing how to apply the substantially all test to NQTLs that are not associated with plan payments, such as prescription drug formularies and network composition standards. One commenter highlighted that it is difficult to calculate the amount of plan payments expected to be paid for prescription drugs subject to an NQTL. Another commenter urged the Departments to clarify the determination of whether an NQTL applies regardless of whether the NQTL was triggered. For example, this commenter highlighted that insurers might state that prior authorization “applies” to all benefits in a classification where a benefit is considered or evaluated under the various factors for determining whether to apply prior authorization, even if the benefit ultimately is determined to not be subject to prior authorization based on the application of factors and evidentiary standards.

In addition, in the proposed rules, the Departments solicited comments on whether plans and issuers maintain systems capable of determining, under the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, whether an NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a classification, and the administrative burden that would be associated with such determinations. Several commenters highlighted that it would be difficult to comply with the substantially all and predominant tests as proposed, including because the requisite data may be housed in different parts of a plan's or issuer's organization. One commenter emphasized that current administrative systems would need to be adapted, and plans and issuers would need to hire additional staff or service providers to be able to perform the analysis that would be required under the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests.

Under the proposed rules, if a plan or issuer determined that an NQTL applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a classification, the third prong of the test would require a plan or issuer to determine the predominant variation of the NQTL that is applied to substantially all medical/surgical benefits subject to the NQTL in the classification. The Departments proposed that the term “predominant” would, for this purpose, mean the most common or most frequent variation of an NQTL within a benefit classification.

The Departments received many comments regarding this part of the proposed tests. Numerous commenters stated that this aspect of the substantially all and predominant tests is unworkable. Some commenters noted that, with a lack of guidance on how to identify all the variations of a particular NQTL (especially those that are complex and nuanced), the proposed rules may not be feasible for plans, issuers, and regulators to apply in real-life situations. Several commenters stated that, while financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations will have only a few different variations, NQTLs are multifactorial and each difference could be considered a different variation, or even a separate NQTL. For example, some of these commenters highlighted that prior authorization or concurrent review may take varied forms: an admission that requires advance prior authorization; an admission that requires notification but no clinical review; a nonclinical review based on predetermined standards; a first-level or nurse clinical review; a second-level or physician clinical review; and a peer-to-peer clinical review. These commenters noted that some processes may be automated or manual, some may be handled by vendors or directly by the plan or issuer, and some may have multiple utilization management systems within all of the aforementioned categories. Another commenter highlighted that a plan or regulator could conceivably determine that “variations” include a wide range of aspects, such as the credentials of the reviewer, the type or source of clinical criteria applied, the timing of the review (for example, urgent vs. nonurgent), the modality of authorization submission (for example, via electronic health record vs. fax or pdf form), among others. As a result, these commenters stated that determining how to identify the predominant variation of an NQTL may not be feasible without additional clarifications. Many commenters requested that the Departments provide a definition of the term “variation” and an explanation of how to determine whether a variation exists, as well as additional guidance and examples illustrating when an NQTL has no variation and when an NQTL has multiple variations (beyond variations based on numerical distinctions). These commenters also noted that, under the proposed rules, the predominant variation may only apply to a small percentage of medical/surgical services or items in the applicable benefit classification.

Lastly, under the fourth prong, the proposed rules provided that an NQTL applied to mental health or substance use disorder benefits cannot be

more restrictive

than the predominant variation of the NQTL applied to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. Under the proposed rules, for this purpose, an NQTL would be considered restrictive if it imposes conditions, terms, or requirements that limit access to benefits under the terms of the plan or coverage. For this purpose,

conditions, terms, or requirements would include, but not be limited to, those that compel an action by or on behalf of a participant or beneficiary to access benefits or limit access to the full range of treatment options available for a condition or disorder under the plan. As discussed later in this preamble, the Departments also proposed that an NQTL applied to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification would not be considered to violate the no more restrictive requirement if the NQTL impartially applies independent professional medical or clinical standards or fraud, waste, and abuse measures, that meet specific requirements.

Some commenters supported this approach to the “more restrictive” part of the test in the proposed rules because, according to these commenters, it provided a more concrete and less subjective standard. Other commenters emphasized, as discussed earlier in this preamble, that the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, which provide a quantitative basis for comparison, are unworkable for NQTLs and administratively burdensome. Many of these commenters requested that, if the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests are finalized, the Departments provide extensive and detailed implementation guidance to assist plans and issuers in complying with what the commenters characterized as this challenging framework. Another commenter suggested that the Departments establish a safe harbor for plans and issuers from the substantially all and predominant tests for any variation in NQTL outcomes data driven by State law or regulation.

The Departments appreciate the detailed comments received on all aspects of the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, including comments particular to each aspect of the proposed four-prong test. The Departments acknowledge that many commenters expressed concerns that applying to NQTLs the same proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests that are applicable to financial requirements or quantitative treatment limitations may be difficult to operationalize and could be unworkable. The Departments acknowledge that this framework was first developed for financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations, where there are relatively clear and limited numbers of variations, and that the framework might be impractical or impossible for NQTLs, which differ in how they are designed and applied to various benefits.

At the same time, the Departments agree with commenters who stated that applying the statutory no more restrictive requirement to NQTLs under the proposed rules would assist regulators tasked with enforcing MHPAEA's requirements and result in overall compliance improvements by formalizing and providing greater clarity on what plans and issuers must do to comply with MHPAEA. The Departments also agree with commenters who emphasized the importance of the statutory requirement that plans and issuers shall ensure that the treatment limitations they impose on mental health and substance use disorder benefits generally are no more restrictive than those they impose on medical/surgical benefits. The proposed rules made clear that the incorporation of this statutory language into regulations is key to ensuring that people seeking mental health and substance use disorder treatment do not face a greater burden on access to benefits for such treatment than on access to benefits for medical treatment and surgical procedures, a premise that is central to MHPAEA.

After reviewing all the comments on the proposed four prongs of the no more restrictive requirement, the Departments have sought to address many of the workability concerns expressed by commenters, while honoring statutory requirements. Specifically, due to concerns raised by the commenters, the Departments are declining to finalize the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests for NQTLs, which would have based these determinations on the dollar amount of all plan payments for medical/surgical benefits expected to be paid, similar to the steps that apply when analyzing parity with respect to financial requirements or quantitative treatment limitations under the 2013 final regulations. These final rules address commenters' operability and feasibility concerns with respect to the proposed mathematical substantially all and predominant tests, while continuing to set forth a standard for parity compliance that is grounded in MHPAEA's statutory text and is also sufficiently flexible to account for the unique and nonquantifiable nature of NQTLs. As noted later in this preamble, these final rules retain the focus on the design and application of NQTLs, including with respect to relevant outcomes measures, to ensure that NQTLs are no more restrictive in the context of mental health and substance use disorder benefits than in the context of medical/surgical benefits.

Therefore, these final rules do not finalize the provisions proposed under 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i)(A) through (E), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i)(A) through (E), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i)(A) through (E). Instead, consistent with MHPAEA's express statutory requirement,

the Departments are finalizing under 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4) the general rule that, consistent with the fundamental purpose of MHPAEA, a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered by an issuer in connection with a group health plan) may not impose any NQTL with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification that is more restrictive, as written or in operation, than the predominant NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. Through this requirement, the Departments reiterate the importance of promoting the goals of the statute and ensuring that individuals have access to the mental health and substance use disorder benefits under their plan or coverage in a way that is not more restrictive than their access to the medical/surgical benefits under their health coverage. For this purpose, consistent with the fundamental purpose of MHPAEA, an NQTL is more restrictive than the predominant NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification if the plan or issuer fails to satisfy the design and application requirements at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i) or the relevant data evaluation requirements at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(iii), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(iii), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(iii). Accordingly, plans and issuers must ensure that the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used to design and apply an NQTL to mental health or substance use disorder benefits are comparable to, and applied no more stringently than, the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, and other factors used to design and apply the NQTL for medical/surgical benefits, including by ensuring that the information, evidence, sources, or standards on which factors and evidentiary standards are based are not biased and are objective. Additionally, plans and issuers must comply with the relevant data evaluation requirements,

including by collecting and evaluating relevant data, determining whether the data suggest an NQTL contributes to material differences in relevant outcomes related to access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits, and if material differences in relevant outcomes related to access exist, taking reasonable action, as necessary, to address the material differences to ensure compliance, in operation, with 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4). Absent compliance with both the design and application requirements and the relevant data evaluation requirements with respect to an NQTL, which are addressed in more detail later in this preamble, a plan or issuer fails to comply with Code section 9812(a)(3)(A)(ii), ERISA section 712(a)(3)(A)(ii), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(3)(A)(ii), as applicable, and may not impose the NQTL with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits. These requirements, taken together, require a plan to consider and evaluate an NQTL's design, application, and resulting outcomes to ensure that an NQTL is not more restrictive, as written or in operation, than the predominant NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification.

Code section 9812(a)(3)(A), ERISA section 712(a)(3)(A), and PHS Act section 2726(a)(3)(A).

These final rules also include a few technical changes to this language, including relocation of the reference to 26 CFR 54.9812-1(a)(1), 29 CFR 2590.712(a)(1), and 45 CFR 146.136(a)(1) from the beginning of the general rule of the design and application requirements to the beginning of the regulatory requirements for NQTLs at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4), to make clear that plans and issuers should consider the fundamental purpose of MHPAEA in complying with all parts of the requirements for NQTLs. Additionally, the Departments are incorporating the phrase “may not impose” from the beginning of the proposed regulatory requirements for NQTLs, to make clear that this standard applies both to the design and application of NQTLs. The Departments are also replacing the word “applied” with “applies” in the clause describing “the predominant NQTL that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification.” This adjustment from past to present tense is intended to clarify that plans and issuers should evaluate compliance with MHPAEA with respect to NQTLs that are currently imposed under the plan or coverage, rather than just those that might have been imposed at some point in the past.

b. Requirements Related to Design and Application of the NQTL—26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i)

The Departments proposed to redesignate the requirement at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i) in the 2013 final regulations as paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) and amend it to align with the Departments' interpretation that a plan or issuer may not impose an NQTL with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification unless, under the terms of the plan (or health insurance coverage) as written and in operation, any processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in

designing and applying

(as compared to only applying, as under the 2013 final regulations) the NQTL to mental health and substance use disorder benefits are comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than those used in designing and applying the limitation with respect to medical/surgical benefits in the classification. To codify this interpretation, and for consistency with the statutory language added by the CAA, 2021, the Departments proposed to revise the regulatory text to make this requirement with respect to designing the NQTL explicit.

Some commenters generally supported the proposed design and application requirements as part of an overall framework for evaluating compliance with MHPAEA's requirements with respect to NQTLs. Some commenters indicated that they have encountered barriers in identifying whether plans and issuers comply with MHPAEA's requirements, and this proposal would help them identify whether the plan or issuer is compliant with respect to the design and application of NQTLs. Other commenters generally opposed the proposed changes to the design and application requirements. One commenter also stated that the design and application requirements would not improve benefit quality and would also constitute an impermissible retroactive application of the regulation in the case of regulated entities that were not required to comply with MHPAEA when they designed their benefit plans.

With respect to commenters' concern that the design and application requirements would not improve benefit quality, the Departments anticipate that greater clarity with respect to these requirements, including the definitions of the terms “processes,” “strategies,” “evidentiary standards,” and “factors” under these final rules, as discussed earlier in this preamble, will help plans and issuers assess their compliance and remedy any parity violations, which will result in improved benefit quality overall. The Departments also disagree with the concern expressed by commenters that the design and application requirements impermissibly apply to plans and issuers that were not required to comply with MHPAEA when they designed their benefit plans. As stated earlier in this preamble, this provision codifies the Departments' longstanding interpretation of the design and application requirements and the CAA, 2021 amendments to the MHPAEA statute. The CAA, 2021 amendments apply generally to plans and issuers that offer both medical/surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits and impose NQTLs on mental health or substance use disorder benefits. Congress did not exempt plans or issuers whose plans or benefit designs predated these requirements, and the Departments similarly did not take such an approach in implementing the 2010 interim final regulations or the 2013 final regulations. In fact, as described in more detail later in this preamble, Congress included a provision in the CAA, 2023 that sunsets the option for self-funded non-Federal governmental plans to elect to opt out of compliance with respect to MHPAEA, so that plans that previously were exempt from the requirements as a result of an opt-out election will no longer be able to make such an election.

The Departments are finalizing as proposed the general rule with respect to the design and application requirements for NQTLs, with a few minor amendments. Accordingly, this provision clarifies that to satisfy these requirements, a plan or issuer must consider, as part of its assessment of an NQTL's compliance with the no more restrictive requirement, whether any processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in designing and applying the NQTL to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in the classification are comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than those used in designing and applying the limitation with respect to medical/surgical benefits in the classification. By requiring processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used to be comparable to and applied no more stringently than, the design and application requirements

of these final rules give meaning to the statutory terms “substantially all” and “predominant.” By making explicit in these final rules the Departments' interpretation of the design and application requirements, and codifying the requirements of the CAA, 2021, this provision will help plans and issuers better understand their MHPAEA compliance obligations with respect to NQTLs, by emphasizing that, as written and in operation, the design of an NQTL is equally relevant as how it is applied. The design and application requirements of these final rules will also ensure that plans and issuers do not place greater burdens on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits.

The Departments note that a plan or issuer must comply with the relevant requirements under these final rules with respect to NQTLs applicable to mental health or substance use disorder benefits once the final rules become applicable to the plan or coverage, including with respect to any NQTLs that were developed and imposed when a plan or issuer was not subject to MHPAEA and that continue to be imposed after the applicability date. However, these final rules are not applicable to an NQTL imposed with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits for any such prior period of time (including a period when MHPAEA was not applicable).

In these final rules, the Departments are codifying the design and application requirements at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i)(A), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i)(A), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i)(A), rather than as proposed at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii)(A), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(A), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii)(A) because, as discussed earlier in this preamble, these final rules structure the design and application requirements as part of the statutory no more restrictive requirement, rather than as a unique prong of the three requirements for NQTLs included in the proposed rules. In addition, the Departments are making a technical correction by amending the regulatory text to refer to health insurance coverage, rather than an issuer, to generally use consistent terminology throughout the regulations. Finally, as noted earlier in this preamble, these final rules move the reference to 26 CFR 54.9812-1(a)(1), 29 CFR 2590.712(a)(1), and 45 CFR 146.136(a)(1) from the beginning of the general rule of the design and application requirements to the beginning of the regulatory requirements for NQTLs at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4).

Prohibition on Discriminatory Factors and Evidentiary Standards

The proposed rules would add a new provision that, for purposes of determining comparability and stringency under the design and application requirements of proposed 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii)(A), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(A), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii)(A), plans and issuers would be prohibited from relying upon any factor or evidentiary standard if the information, evidence, sources, or standards on which the factor or evidentiary standard is based discriminate against mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. The proposed rules stated that information would be considered to discriminate against mental health or substance use disorder benefits if it is biased or not objective, in a manner that results in less favorable treatment of mental health or substance use disorder benefits, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. Such relevant facts and circumstances would include, but not be limited to, the source of the information, the purpose or context of the information, and the content of the information. Therefore, under the proposed rules, plans and issuers would not be permitted to rely on information that reflects bias, as those factors or evidentiary standards would be discriminatory.

For this purpose, the Departments stated in the proposed rules that information resulting in the less favorable treatment of mental health and substance use disorder benefits without legitimate justification or that is otherwise not objective would be considered to be biased and to discriminate against mental health and substance use disorder benefits. When determining which information, evidence, sources, or standards should inform the factors or evidentiary standards used to design or apply an NQTL, plans and issuers would not be permitted under the proposed rules to use information, evidence, sources, or standards if they are biased in favor of imposing greater restrictions on access to covered mental health and substance use disorder benefits or not objective, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. The Departments also proposed that impartially applied independent professional medical or clinical standards and fraud, waste, and abuse measures that meet specific requirements would qualify for an exception and would not be considered to discriminate against mental health or substance use disorder benefits.

Additionally, in the preamble to the proposed rules the Departments noted that the proposed prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards would prohibit plans and issuers from relying on historical plan data or other historical information from a time when the plan or coverage was not subject to MHPAEA or was in violation of MHPAEA's requirements, where the use of such data results in less favorable treatment of mental health and substance use disorder benefits. The Departments provided an example illustrating that a plan or issuer would not be permitted to calculate reimbursement rates based on historical data on total plan spending for each specialty that is divided between mental health and substance use disorder providers and medical/surgical providers, when the total spending by the plan was based on a time period when the plan or coverage was not subject to MHPAEA or was in violation of MHPAEA, if the data result in less favorable treatment of mental health and substance use disorder benefits. Consequently, under the framework in the proposed rules, plans and issuers could not use such data to develop a factor or evidentiary standard for the design or application of an NQTL to mental health or substance use disorder benefits. The proposed rules stated, to the extent a plan or issuer relies on any factor or evidentiary standard that discriminates against mental health or substance use disorder benefits, or any information, evidence, sources, or standards that inform such factors or evidentiary standards to design and apply NQTLs, the plan or issuer would violate the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards set forth in proposed 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii)(B), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(B), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii)(B).

Many commenters expressed general support for this provision of the proposed rules. For example, one commenter noted that the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards would more effectively protect against the inappropriate application of NQTLs that, although appearing to be compliant with MHPAEA as written, have a disproportionately negative effect on access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits. Some commenters also indicated that the proposed provision is consistent with the text and purpose of MHPAEA, as well as the ACA, and favored a broad interpretation

of the requirement to address particular examples of discrimination by plans and issuers, to which some of them expressly cited. Other commenters expressed opposition to the proposed prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards. Some of these commenters stated that the proposal would be administratively burdensome, and it would be difficult for plans and issuers to operationalize due to ambiguity and inherent subjectivity. Some commenters opposed to the proposed prohibition stated that it is duplicative of the proposed relevant data evaluation requirements. These commenters thought the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards should be eliminated as superfluous, because the required evaluation of outcomes data under the proposed rules is intended to ensure that factors are applied no more stringently to mental health and substance use disorder benefits than medical/surgical benefits and do not result in a material difference in access.

Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed requirement that information must not be biased and must be objective (which is based on facts and circumstances) is too subjective, can only be determined retroactively (yet must be applied prospectively), and is too difficult to apply for plans or issuers to be certain of compliance. One commenter requested clarification on the documentation and evidence required to demonstrate the absence of bias. Another commenter expressed concern that plans may not have the ability to prove that information is unbiased and objective.

One commenter stated that it is unclear whether the Departments intend to focus on the factors and evidentiary standards themselves or on the effects of using those factors and standards. Some commenters assumed that whether a factor or evidentiary standard is discriminatory would be based on an evaluation of outcomes, and that therefore any disparity in outcomes data could be viewed as use of a discriminatory factor or evidentiary standard. These commenters requested examples of outcomes that would demonstrate compliance. In addition, many commenters requested examples of discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards and of nondiscriminatory information and data sources. Several commenters requested the Departments to make clear that plans and issuers may not establish compliance by relying on a fee schedule used by Medicare, although another commenter requested that plans and issuers be able to access a safe harbor if they paid above-Medicare rates.

After considering commenters' feedback, the Departments are finalizing the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards with modifications. As the Departments stated in the preamble to the proposed rules this provision will help address the concern that various factors and evidentiary standards that plans and issuers have relied on to design NQTLs with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits might themselves discriminate against mental health and substance use disorder benefits by treating them in a less favorable manner. At the same time, the Departments acknowledge commenters' concerns about potential ambiguities in the proposed prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards, questions about whether this provision is duplicative of other parts of the proposed rules, and confusion about how to operationalize the prohibition.

In response to these concerns, and to assist plans and issuers in complying with the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards in these final rules, the Departments have modified the prohibition by providing additional clarity regarding what it means for information, evidence, sources, or standards to be “biased or not objective.” The final rules both clarify the prohibition in a manner to ensure that it can be applied prospectively and revise it to expressly provide that potentially biased or not objective information, evidence, sources, or standards can be corrected, cured, or supplemented, and then relied upon by a plan or issuer to inform a factor or evidentiary standard that is not discriminatory. The Departments also provide additional examples of discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards later in this preamble.

First, with respect to the general prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards, these final rules at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i)(B), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i)(B), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i)(B)

provide that, for purposes of determining comparability and stringency under 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i)(A), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i)(A), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i)(A), a plan (or health insurance coverage) may not rely upon discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards to design an NQTL to be imposed on mental health or substance use disorder benefits. The Departments intend that the focus of this prohibition be specifically on the design of NQTLs, to further distinguish the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards from the relevant data evaluation requirements. These final rules provide the necessary clarity for plans and issuers to determine whether information, evidence, sources, or standards are biased or not objective, and if so, cannot be used as the basis for a factor or evidentiary standard used to design an NQTL applicable to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.

As noted earlier in this preamble, the Departments are codifying the design and application requirements (including the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards) at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i), rather than as proposed at 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii), because these final rules structure the design and application requirements as part of the no more restrictive requirement, rather than as a unique prong of the 3-part test proposed in the proposed rules.

Specifically, these final rules state that a factor or evidentiary standard is discriminatory if the information, evidence, sources, or standards on which the factor or evidentiary standard are based are biased or not objective in a manner that discriminates against mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. This language is similar to that included under proposed 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii)(B), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(B), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii)(B) but adds the phrase “is biased or not objective in a manner that,” preceding the word “discriminates.” This phrase, in conjunction with the other changes to the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards discussed later in this preamble, was modified in response to comments and is intended to help clarify that a plan or issuer is expected to assess whether the information, evidence, sources, or standards on which each factor or evidentiary standard are based are biased or not objective in a manner that discriminates against mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. This analysis is distinct from the final rules' requirement to compare the comparability and stringency of factors and evidentiary standards used to design and apply an NQTL.

Second, the Departments are finalizing a modified version of the provision originally proposed under 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(ii)(B)(

), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(ii)(B)(

), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(ii)(B)(

) as 26 CFR 54.9812-1(c)(4)(i)(B)(

), 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4)(i)(B)(

), and 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4)(i)(B)(

) of these final rules. This provision of the proposed rules

provided that information is considered to discriminate against mental health or substance use disorder benefits if it is biased or not objective, in a manner that results in less favorable treatment of mental health or substance use disorder benefits, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. As mentioned earlier in this preamble, the Departments received many comments opposing this provision as proposed, including comments expressing confusion as to how it is different from the relevant data evaluation requirements, questions regarding the kind of documentation and evidence needed to show compliance, and concern that it is subjective and difficult to operationalize.

The prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards is intended to work together with the other provisions of these final rules, including the relevant data evaluation requirements. Like all the provisions of these final rules, the provision further implements the statutory requirement that NQTLs be no more restrictive with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits than the predominant limitations applicable to substantially all medical/surgical benefits. The test specifically focuses on the importance of ensuring that the factors and evidentiary standards relied upon by plans and issuers in designing NQTLs do not have built-in biases (at the time NQTLs are designed) against mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits. To the extent plans and issuers rely upon factors and evidentiary standards to design NQTLs that systematically disfavor access or are specifically designed to disfavor access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits, the resultant NQTLs are more restrictive with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits than for medical/surgical benefits.

The Departments note that a factor or evidentiary standard may be based on or include information that solely relates to medical/surgical benefits (and is silent or without corollary with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits). Such a factor or evidentiary standard is not considered discriminatory for this purpose. For example, a plan can reasonably rely on a source of information on the clinical efficacy of a treatment or service to inform a factor used to design a medical management NQTL, even though that source does not address the clinical efficacy of any treatment of any mental health conditions or substance use disorders, without violating the prohibition on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards. However, the use of such factor or evidentiary standard must comply with the design and application requirements, as described earlier in this preamble.

In response to comments to provide additional clarity, the final rules elaborate on the meaning of the phrase “biased and not objective in a manner that discriminates against mental health or substance use disorder benefits.” Specifically, these final rules provide that information, evidence, sources, or standards are considered to be biased or not objective in a manner that discriminates against mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits if, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, they systematically disfavor access or are specifically designed to disfavor access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits as compared to medical/surgical benefits.

For purposes of determining whether information, evidence, sources, or standards are considered to be biased or not objective under these final rules, relevant facts and circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the reliability of information, evidence, sources, or standards, including any underlying data and the independence of the information, evidence, sources, and standards relied upon. The Departments note that internal data or information, such as claims data, would generally not be considered independent, but would not necessarily be considered discriminatory on that basis alone. In the Department

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.