Wednesday, October 22, 2025
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Central
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Mountain
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Pacific
The Treasury and IRS have released final regulations implementing key SECURE 2.0 provisions, including the Roth catch-up requirement for high earners and
Seyfarth Synopsis: Earlier today, Treasury and the IRS issued highly-anticipated final regulations addressing several changes to the catch-up contribution provisions implemented by SECURE 2.0. Proposed regulations were issued earlier this year (see our Legal Update here), and administrative questions lingered following the issuance of the proposed regulations. The much-welcomed final regulations answer a number of open questions that we had been grappling with following the enactment of SECURE 2.0 and the issuance of the proposed regulations earlier this year. Below is a high-level overview of several pressing issues that have been addressed by the final regulations. We will be issuing a more comprehensive Legal Update on the final rules in the coming days.
Under the proposed regulations, designated Roth contributions made by a participant at any point within a calendar year must be counted towards satisfying the Roth catch-up requirement (“Roth Catch-Up Requirement”). This provision caused administrative concerns and several commenters asked that the final rules make this permissive so that plans had the choice as to whether to include Roth deferrals made by the participant at any point in the calendar year towards the Roth Catch-Up Requirement. The final regulations provide plan administrators that use the deemed Roth approach with some – but not universal – flexibility. The final regulations do not seem to go so far as making this optional approach available in all situations, which we will cover in the forthcoming Legal Update. Continue Reading Final Catch-Up Rules: What Now? (Spoiler Alert: There is No Extension)
Seyfarth Synopsis: Under the current administration, the Department of Labor has once again changed course on its view of permissible investing strategies for retirement plans, warming to crypto and private equity, and confirming their distrust of ESG.
Over the last decade, there has been quite a bit of back and forth surrounding permissible investments
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), preserving the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that health plans cover preventive services–such as HIV prevention medication–without cost sharing. The ruling ensures continued access to a wide range of preventive care for
We’re proud to share that Seyfarth’s Beneficially Yours blog has been ranked #1 on FeedSpot’s list of the Top 35 ERISA blogs.
Compiled from thousands of blogs, FeedSpot’s list highlights leading sources based on web traffic, social media engagement, domain authority, and content freshness.
Edited by Diane Dygert and Richard Schwartz, Beneficially Yours
Seyfarth Synopsis: As expected, the lawsuits have commenced following the enactment of the Arkansas legislation prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers (PBM’s) from owning or operating actual pharmacies within the state. Michigan has filed its own lawsuit against PBMs. Further, a similar bill targeting PBMs is winding its way through the Illinois legislature.
As we discussed in our blog post here, Arkansas recently became the first state in the nation to prohibit licenses for retail, mail order or specialty pharmacies that are owned (directly or indirectly) by a PBM. The law does contain a limited exception that allows the issuance of licenses to PBM-affiliated pharmacies for certain rare, orphan, or limited distribution drugs, but this window for exceptions closes in September 2027 (presumably intended to provide a transition period to source these drugs through pharmacies not affiliated with PBMs).
Two lawsuits have now been filed by PBMs challenging Arkansas’ authority to pass this legislation. The lawsuits allege harm to residents of Arkansas by causing the closure of many brick and mortar pharmacies across the state and the inability to access mail-order pharmacies. Express Scripts, in its suit, argues that the Arkansas state law violates several provisions of the United States Constitution, claiming that:
Because Express Scripts and its affiliates provide services to the US Defense Department’s TRICARE program, the suit also claims that the state statute is preempted by the federal law and regulations surrounding that program.
Arkansas has not yet filed its response to the suits.Continue Reading States Seeking Remedies for the Rising Costs of Prescription Drugs
Seyfarth Synopsis: Arkansas has become the first state in the nation to enact legislation, effective starting in 2026, prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning or operating actual pharmacies within the state. We take a look at what that may mean for employers sponsoring health plans with pharmacy benefits in the state.
PBMs have become a unifying scapegoat in the escalating concern about the cost of prescription drug coverage in the country. So, it becomes important to understand what role they really play. PBMs act as a middle man of sorts for the prescription drug coverage offered by many employer health benefit plans. With the ever-expanding universe of prescription drugs, including the many specialty drugs that are being offered and widely advertised to the public, it is difficult for plan sponsors to be able to directly manage this benefit. PBMs grew up as an answer to the needs for a third party to administer drug coverage under plans. Continue Reading Cutting Out the Middle Man
Seyfarth Synopsis: Since September 2023, there have been at least 25 lawsuits filed claiming the ability to choose between using 401(k) forfeitures to reduce plan expenses or the plan sponsor’s contributions is a fiduciary choice, and that choosing to reduce the plan sponsor’s contributions constitutes a violation of ERISA’s fiduciary duties. In the latest decision
Seyfarth Synopsis: Access to reproductive health care has been a part of the national debate for years, and even more so since 2022 when the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs overturning decades of precedent established under Roe v. Wade. As a result, the topic has become a focal point in the Presidential election with the two main candidates having seemingly very different platforms and catering to their constituencies who have strongly held beliefs and values on the issue. This aspect has been well covered in the media. However, employers also have a vested interest in how the federal and state laws and jurisprudence evolve in this area, which is largely dependent on which party wins the White House and down ticket races this November.
Under Dobbs, the Supreme Court dismantled the federal Constitutional protections around abortion access specifically (and arguably reproductive health care more generally), and in light of the absence of specific federal legislation regarding the right to an abortion, gave the decision on access to each of the states. This triggered fairly immediate action in many of the state legislatures and mobilized citizen initiatives around the country. Continue Reading Reproductive Health Care: A Future in Flux with the Next Administration
On Monday, September 9, 2024, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (the “Departments”) issued their final rule regarding the nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) comparative analysis required under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). (These acronyms roll right off the tongue, don’t they?) The Departments note that final rules