The Compliance Download, October Vol. 2

Voting Leave Compliance: Are You Ready for Election Day?

What’s the issue: There is no federal law requiring employers to provide employees time off to vote, but many states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have their own voting leave requirements. These laws vary significantly, with some requiring paid leave, others requiring unpaid leave, and some imposing notice, posting, or scheduling requirements.  

Why it matters: Failing to provide required time off, post mandatory notices, or comply with state specific requirements could expose your organization to fines, criminal penalties, or employee relations issues. As Election Day approaches, employees may increasingly seek flexibility to participate in the voting process.  

What to do: Review the voting leave requirements in every state where you operate and determine whether paid or unpaid leave must be provided. Confirm whether advance employee notice is required, verify if any election notices must be posted, and train managers on applicable state requirements. Consider encouraging employees to notify you in advance of voting leave needs to help balance compliance obligations with operational demands.  

Bottom line: Voting leave laws vary widely by state, making advance planning critical. Taking time now to review requirements, educate managers, and communicate expectations can help you remain compliant while supporting employees’ ability to exercise their right to vote.  

download here

Mental Health Parity Compliance: Are You Focused on the Right Risk Areas?

In a recent Field Assistance Bulletin, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) identified three key enforcement priorities: behavioral health treatment exclusions, differing medical necessity standards between mental health and medical benefits, and network adequacy concerns. 

Why it matters: Mental health parity remains a top enforcement priority for regulators. Plans that impose blanket exclusions on mental health treatments, apply stricter prior authorization or medical necessity reviews, or maintain inadequate behavioral health provider networks may face increased scrutiny. Regulators have specifically identified these areas as potential compliance red flags and are expected to continue requesting NQTL comparative analyses during investigations. 

What to do: Review your plan’s mental health and substance use disorder benefits for potential parity concerns. Work with carriers, TPAs, and vendors to validate that required MHPAEA analyses are current and well documented. 

Bottom line: Regulatory enforcement of mental health parity is only speeding up. Taking a proactive approach now can help identify compliance gaps, strengthen documentation, and reduce the risk of costly corrective action if your plan is audited. 

download here