The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Rules
BILL: CS/SB 940
INTRODUCER: Banking and Insurance Committee and Senators Calatayud and Rodriguez
SUBJECT: Multiple-employer Welfare Arrangements
DATE: April 19, 2023
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Johnson Knudson BI Fav/CS
2. Renner McKay CM Favorable
3. Johnson Twogood RC Favorable
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Technical Changes
I. Summary:
CS/SB 940 revises statutory provisions relating to the regulation of association health plans
(AHP), which are a type of multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA). A MEWA is a
legal arrangement that allows business associations or employer groups to jointly offer health
insurance and other specified benefits to their members or employees. In Florida, The Office of
Insurance Regulation has regulatory oversight of self-insured MEWAs and AHPs.
In 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) revised the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) rules by providing another option for establishing and maintaining an association
health plan in order to expand access to affordable health coverage for sole proprietors and small
employers. This rule loosened the requirements for associations to qualify as ERISA-covered
“bona-fide associations,” thereby allowing the AHPs they sponsor to qualify as single ERISA
plans and be subject to large group market requirements instead of the individual and small
group market requirements. Florida codified the 2018 federal regulation defining “bona-fide
group.” In 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated significant
provisions of the federal regulations. The court concluded that the bona fide association and
working provisions of the Final Rule are unreasonable and unlawful interpretations of ERISA,
and these provisions were vacated by the court.
CS/SB 940 revises the definition of “bona-fide group” under Florida law to include many of the
provisions of the 2018 federal rule and removes the cross reference to the 2018 federal
REVISED: BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 2
regulation. The bill provides that a bona-fide group is an employee welfare benefit plan
consisting of a group or association of member employers that meets the following requirements:
The primary purpose of the group or association is to offer and provide health coverage to its
member employers and their employees, but the group or association must have at least one
substantial business purpose that is unrelated to the offering and providing of health
insurance. A substantial business purpose is considered to exist if the group or association
would be a viable entity in the absence of sponsoring an employee benefit plan.
Each member employer participating in the group health plan is a person acting directly as an
employer of at least one employee who is a participant covered under the plan.
The group or association has a formal organizational structure with a governing body.
The functions and activities of the group or association are controlled by its member
employers. The control must be present both in form and substance.
The member employers have a principal place of business in the same region that does not
exceed the boundaries of a single state or a metropolitan area, even if the metropolitan area
includes more than one state.
Eligibility for the association or group health coverage offerings is specified, such as an
employee or former employee of a current employer member of the group or association; or a
beneficiary of the current or former employee.
The group or association is not a health insurance issuer as described in section 733(b)(2) of
ERISA, or owned or controlled by a health insurance issuer or by a subsidiary or affiliate of a
health insurance issuer, other than to the extent such entities participate in the group or
association in their capacity as member employers of the group or association. This language
is substantially similar to language found in 29 C.F.R. part 2510.3-5 (8), with the only
difference being the removal of the federal citation for the definition of a health insurance
issuer.
The group or association health coverage must comply with the nondiscrimination provisions
of s. 627.6699, F.S., as it applies to small group health plans.
The bill is not expected to have an impact on state or local governments.
The bill takes effect upon becoming law.
II. Present Situation:
Regulation of Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under ERISA
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of
the provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
1
In general,
ERISA prescribes minimum participation, vesting and funding standards for private-sector
pension benefit plans and reporting and disclosure, claims procedure, bonding and other
requirements which apply to both private-sector pension plans and private-sector welfare benefit
plans. ERISA also prescribes standards of fiduciary conduct which apply to persons responsible
for the administration and management of the assets of employee benefit plans subject to ERISA.
1
29 U.S.C. s. 100 et seq. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 3
ERISA covers only those plans, funds, or arrangements that constitute an “employee welfare
benefit plan,” as defined in ERISA Section 3(1), or an “employee pension benefit plan,” as
defined in ERISA Section 3(2). By definition, multiple employer welfare arrangements
(MEWAs) do not provide pension benefits; therefore, only those MEWAs that constitute
“employee welfare benefit plans” are subject to ERISA’s provisions governing employee benefit
plans.
Prior to 1983, if a MEWA was determined to be an ERISA-covered plan, state regulation of the
arrangement would have been precluded by ERISA’s preemption provisions. On the other hand,
if the MEWA was not an ERISA-covered plan, which was generally the case, ERISA’s
preemption provisions did not apply and states were free to regulate the entity in accordance with
applicable state law. In 1983, Congress amended ERISA to give states regulatory authority over
self-insured multiple employer welfare arrangements and some regulatory authority over fully
insured MEWAs to ensure solvency, require state licensure, and require financial reporting.
2
Subsequently in 1996, ERISA was amended to give the DOL the authority to require full-insured
and self-insured MEWAs to register with the DOL.
3
MEWAs that are not group health plans
(non-plan MEWAs) must register with the DOL prior to operating in a state.
4
The purpose of this
reporting was to allow the department to determine whether the requirements of part 7 of ERISA
were being met.
5
Part 7 of ERISA includes statutory amendments made by HIPAA and other
statutes for which MEWAs must annually report compliance.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
6
(PPACA) created reporting requirements for
MEWAs, imposed criminal penalties on MEWA fraud, and authorized the department to take
immediate actions against fraudulent MEWAs.
Access to Affordable Health Insurance Coverage through an Association
Prior to August 20, 2018, health insurance coverage offered or provided through an employer
trade association, chamber of commerce, or similar organization, to individuals and small
employers, was generally regulated under the same federal standards that apply to insurance
coverage sold by health insurance issuers
7
directly to these individuals and small employers,
unless the coverage sponsored by the group or association constituted a single ERISA covered
plan.
8
Generally, unless the arrangement sponsored by the group or association constituted a
single ERISA covered plan, the regulatory framework disregarded the group or association in
determining whether the coverage obtained by any particular participating individual or
2
Pub. L. 97-473.
3
Pub. L. 104-191.
4
Title 29 CFR s. 2520.101-2.
5
65 Fed Reg. 7152 (Feb. 11, 2000) interim rule and 68 Fed. Reg. 17494 (Apr. 9, 2003) final rule.
6
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-152), which amended and revised several provisions of the PPACA, was enacted on March 30, 2010. The
laws are collectively referred to as PPACA.
7
A “health insurance issuer” or ‘‘issuer’’ is an insurance company, insurance service, or insurance organization (including an
HMO) that is required to be licensed to engage in the business of insurance in a state and that is subject to state law that
regulates insurance (within the meaning of section 514(b)(2) of ERISA). Such term does not include a group health plan.
29 CFR 2590.701–2. The terms ‘‘health insurance issuer’’ and ‘‘issuer’’ are used interchangeably.
8
Fed. Reg. Vol. 83, No 120 (June 21, 2018) at 28912 and 28913. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 4
employer is individual, small group, or large group market coverage. Instead, the test for
determining the type of coverage focuses on whether the coverage is offered to individuals or
employers.
9
As a result, associations that wanted to form association health plans (AHPs) and existing AHPs
currently faced a complex and costly compliance environment, insofar as the various employer
members of the association and the association’s health insurance coverage arrangement may
simultaneously be subject to large group, small group, and individual market regulation which
undermines one of the core purposes and advantages of an association forming and its employer
members joining an AHP.
On June 21, 2018, the DOL issued its final rule on the regulation of AHPs, effective August 20,
2018.
10
The final rule maintains the existing regulatory framework but also creates a second
option for both new and existing AHPs that may elect to follow the new regulations. The second
option contains the following key provisions:
Allows for AHPs to be based on a common geography area or a common industry for
purposes of the commonality of interest test.
Allows small employers, including sole proprietors with no employees, to join together to
form an AHP and be treated as a large employer for the purpose of buying insurance.
Previously an employer with no employees was not eligible for group coverage.
Includes nondiscrimination protections that prohibit associations from conditioning
membership based on a health factor (e.g., health status, medical condition including both
physical and mental illnesses, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history,
genetic information, evidence of insurability, or disability of an employee, or family
member). An AHP may not discriminate in eligibility (e.g., enrollment, effective coverage
dates, or waiting periods) benefits or premiums against an individual within a group of
similarly situated individuals based on health factors. The rule does not prohibit the use of
non-health factors such as gender, age, geography, and industry. The rule prohibits groups or
associations from treating the employees of different employer members as distinct groups of
similarly situated individuals based on a health factor.
Eliminates the existing requirement that a group or association acting as an employer must
exist for purposes other than providing health benefits. The rule requires that a group or
association of employers have at least one substantial business purpose unrelated to offering
and providing health coverage or other employee benefits to its employer members and their
employees, even if the primary purpose of the group or association is to offer such coverage
to its members.
The rule provides that states will continue to have regulatory oversight of AHPs and share
enforcement authority with the federal government. The new rule does not affect previously
existing AHPs, which were authorized under prior guidance.
11
Such plans can continue to
operate as before, or elect to follow the new requirements if they want to expand within a
geographic area, regardless of industry, or to cover the self-employed. New plans can also form
9
Id. Known as the “look through” doctrine.
10
29 CFR Part 2510, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-21/pdf/2018-12992.pdf (last viewed
April 3, 2023).
11
Fed. Reg. Vol. 83, No. 120 (June 21, 2018) Preamble. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 5
and elect to follow either the old guidance or the new rules. New and existing plans may use
experience rating by underwriting premiums for individual employer members based on health
status. However, the AHPs that want to do so must continue to meet the prior federal regulations,
which are more stringent standards in areas such as commonality of interest; and they could not
enroll working owners in an AHP coverage.
In the preamble of the rule, the DOL states that the final rule does nothing to remove the
traditional oversight and regulatory authority that states have over AHPs and MEWAs. The final
rule does not modify or otherwise limit existing state authority under Section 514 of ERISA.
For fully insured AHPs, states can impose solvency standards and other rules that apply to health
insurers that sell policies to AHPs. The DOL adds that states clearly have the authority to impose
licensing, registration, certification, financial reporting, examination, audit, and any other
standards on fully insured AHPs that are necessary to ensure compliance with the state solvency
standards. For self-insured AHPs, states can apply insurance laws to the AHP so long as the state
law is “not inconsistent” with ERISA.
12
The rule provides that the large group market’s regulatory flexibility is likely to encourage and
enable more existing organizations to pursue more potential scale advantages for small business
members. These might include some MEWAs that currently do not constitute single large group
plans but instead encompass multiple plans, each sponsored separately by a participating
employer (non-plan MEWAs).
13
Further, the rule also encourages the establishment of new
organizations to sponsor AHPs, and will enable both existing and new AHPs to extend
membership to working owners. Fully-insured and self-insured AHPs established under this final
rule generally will be subject to federal benefit mandates that apply to the large group insurance
and self-insured ERISA-covered markets, respectively.
Federal Litigation Relating to the Regulations of AHPs
Eleven states and the District of Columbia sued the DOL alleging that its final rule interpreting
the definition of “employer” in ERISA is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
14
The court held that the bona fide association and working owner provisions of the final rule,
codified at 29 C.F.R. ss. 2510.3-5(b), (c), and (e), are unreasonable interpretations of ERISA and
were vacated by the court.
15
The court concluded that the final rule was intended to end run the
requirements of PPACA.
16
The court notes that the final rule includes a severability provision,
which provides that if a provision is found entirely invalid then “the provision shall be severable
from (the final rule) and shall not affect the remainder thereof.” In light of this provision, the
court remanded the final rule to the agency for consideration in the first instance of how the
12
Section 514(b)(6)(A)(ii) of ERISA. See Health Affairs Blog, Final Rule Rapidly Eases Restrictions on Non-ACA-
Compliant Association Health Plans (June 21, 2018), available at
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20180621.671483/full/ (last visited April 3, 2023).
13
Health Affairs Blog, Final Rule Rapidly Eases Restrictions on Non-ACA-Compliant Association Health Plans (June 21,
2018), available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20180621.671483/full/ (last visited April 3, 2023).
14
State of New York, et al., v. United States Department of Labor, 363 F.Supp.3d 109 (D.C. Cir 2019).
15
Id. at 141.
16
Id. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 6
severability provision affects the remaining portions of the final rule. The Department of Justice
appealed the court’s decision to the court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
17
On April 29, 2019, the DOL provided guidance
18
regarding their enforcement stance for AHPs
created under the new rule. The court ruling was issued days before the rule went fully into effect
for new self-insured AHPs.
19
Because the rule had already been partially in effect, there were
questions about what the court’s decision meant for consumers who already enrolled in new
AHP coverage.
20
Under this guidance, the DOL and HHS stated that they would not take enforcement action for
violations that occurred before court decision so long as the entity made those decisions in good
faith reliance on the validity of the AHP rule.
21
DOL will not take action against existing AHPs
for continuing to provide benefits to members who enrolled in good faith reliance on the AHP
rule's validity before the district court's order, through the remainder of the applicable contract
term. Further, at the end of the plan year, the issuer would only be able to renew the coverage for
an employer member of an AHP formed pursuant to the DOL’s final rule if the coverage
complies with the relevant market requirements for that employer's size (such as, for insurance
sold to small employers, the essential health benefits requirements and premium rating rules).
The guidance provided that an insurer can satisfy the requirement to continue the coverage in
force by continuing coverage for each employer-member of the association that chooses to
continue coverage, either through the master policy with the association or through separate
contracts with each employer-member on an outside-the-association basis.
Regulation of Insurance in Florida
The Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) licenses and regulates the activities of insurers, health
maintenance organizations (HMOs), and other risk-bearing entities.
22
The Agency for Health
Care Administration (agency) regulates the quality of care provided by HMOs under part III of
ch. 641, F.S., and before receiving a certificate of authority from the OIR, an HMO must receive
a Health Care Provider Certificate from the agency.
23
Regulation of Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements—General Provisions
Section 627.651, F.S., provides that group health insurance contracts and plans of self-insurance
must meet certain group requirements. Further, this section does not apply to any plan which is
established or maintained by an individual employer in accordance with ERISA or to a MEWA,
as defined in s. 624.437, F.S., except that a MEWA must comply with the following statutory
provisions:
17
Health Affairs Blog, DOL Issues Additional Guidance On AHPs (May 15, 2019), available at
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20190515.142866/full/ (last visited April 3, 2023).
18
U.S. Department of Labor Statement Relating to the U.S. District Court Ruling in State of New York v. United States
Department of Labor | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov) (Apr. 29, 2019) (last visited April 3, 2023).
19
DOJ Appeals AHP Decision, CMS Posts Final 1332 Funding For 2019 | Health Affairs (Apr. 30, 2019).
20
Supra note 17.
21
Supra note 18.
22
Section 20.121(3)(a), F.S.
23
Section 641.21(1), F.S. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 7
627.419, F.S., relating to the construction of policies.
627.657, F.S., relating to guaranteed availability of individual health insurance coverage.
627.6575, F.S., relating to group coverage for newborn children.
627.6578, F.S., relating to group coverage for natural-born, adopted, and foster children; and
children in insured’s custodial care.
627.6579, F.S., relating to group coverage for child health supervision services.
627.6612, F.S., relating to group coverage for surgical procedures and devices incident to
mastectomy.
627.66121, F.S., relating to coverage length of stay and outpatient postsurgical care for breast
cancer.
627.66122, F.S., relating to group coverage for breast cancer and routine follow up care.
627.6615, F.S., relating to group coverage continuation of coverage for children with
disabilities.
627.6616, F.S., relating to group coverage for ambulatory surgical center service.
627.662(7), F.S., relating to denial of claims.
24
Florida’s Nonprofit Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement Act
In Florida, MEWAs
25
are regulated pursuant to the Florida’s Nonprofit Multiple Employer
Welfare Arrangement Act (act).
26
An AHP consisting of multiple employers is referred to as a
MEWA.
27
For purposes of this act, a MEWA is an employee welfare benefit plan or any other
arrangement which is established or maintained for the purpose of offering or providing health
insurance benefits or any other benefits described in s. 624.33, F.S., other than life insurance
benefits, to the employees of two or more employers, or to their beneficiaries.
28
A person may
not operate, maintain, or, after October 1, 1983, establish a MEWA unless such arrangement has
a valid certificate of authority issued by the OIR.
29
The OIR uses the requirements of s. 624.438, F.S., to determine eligibility for MEWAs
30
and
specifies the application requirements in Rule 69O-192.008, F.A.C. The OIR reviews MEWA
24
Section 627.645(1), F.S. provides that a claim for payment under a health insurance policy or self-insured program of
health benefits for treatment, care, or services in a licensed hospital that is accredited by an accrediting organization whose
standards incorporate comparable regulations required by this state may not be denied because such hospital lacks major
surgical facilities and is primarily of a rehabilitative nature, if such rehabilitation is specifically for treatment of physical
disability.
25
Section 624.437(3), F.S., provides this section does not apply to a MEWA that offers or provides fully insured benefits by
an authorized insurer, to an arrangement which is exempt from state insurance regulation pursuant to ERISA, or to the state
group insurance program.
26
Section 624.436-624.448, F.S. which may be cited as the “Florida Nonprofit Multiple Welfare Arrangement Act.”
27
Section 624.438, F.S.
28
Section 624.437(1), F.S. Subsection (3) of this section exempts a MEWA that offers or provides benefits which are fully
insured by an authorized insurer, to an arrangement which is exempt from state insurance regulation in accordance with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the state group health insurance program administered
pursuant to s.110.123, F.S.
29
Section 624.437(2), F.S.
30
See Office of Insurance Regulation, 2023 Legislative Session, SB 940 Analysis (Feb. 22, 2023). On file with the Senate
Banking and Insurance Committee. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 8
applications for compliance with Florida law and does not review for compliance with federal
standards.
31
In 2019, s. 624.438, F.S., was amended to codify the cross reference to the definition of bona
fide group, as adopted in the 2018 federal rule. This change also was made in s. 627.654, F.S,
relating to labor unions, association of employers, and small employer alliance groups.
32
Section
624.438, F.S., specifies the general eligibility criteria for a MEWA and requires the employers to
be in the same trade, industry, or profession as defined by the appropriate licensing agencies, or a
bona fide group as defined in 29 C.F.R. part 2510.3-5. It also requires the MEWA to have a
constitution or bylaws specifically stating its purpose and which has been organized for purposes
in addition to obtaining or providing insurance.
In Florida, three MEWAs are licensed by Office of Insurance Regulation. They are the Florida
Bankers Health Consortium, Inc., Greater Health Trust, and Independent Colleges and
Universities Benefit Association, Inc.
33
Labor Unions, Association, and Small Employer Health Alliance Groups
Section 627.654, F.S., provides that a bona fide group or association or association of employers,
as defined in 29 C.F.R. part 2510.3-5, or a group of individuals insured under an association may
include a labor union or small employer health alliance groups if certain conditions are met.
Regulation of Small Group Employers
Section 627.6699, F.S., the Employee Health Care Access Act, defines a small group as an
employer with at least one and not more 50 employees. The act provides restrictions relating to
premium rates. The act allows the use of modified community rating in which the premium for
each small employer is determined solely on the basis of the eligible employee’s and eligible
dependent’s gender, age, family composition, tobacco use, or geographic area. In addition,
premium adjustments of an employer’s rate for claims experience, health status, or duration of
coverage may deviate plus or minus 15 percent from the carrier’s approved rate.
34
Subsequently,
a small employer carrier may make an adjustment to a small employer’s renewal premium, up to
10 percent annually due to claims experience, health status, or duration of coverage of the
employees or dependents of the small employer.
The rating and underwriting standards of PPACA
35
require that premiums for individuals and
small groups may vary only by:
31
Id. The OIR states that the U.S. Department of Labor advisory opinion and the 2018 Federal District Court opinion do not
impact OIR's review of MEWA licensing applications.
32
Ch. 2019-129, Laws of Fla. Section 627.654, F.S., provides eligibility requirements for associations, labor unions, and
small employer health alliance groups that want to be insured under a policy issued to their respective entity.
33
Office of Insurance Regulation, Company Search (myfloridacfo.gov) (last visited April 3, 2023)
34
Section 627.6699(6), F.S.
35
PPACA requires individual and small group plans to provide certain essential benefits and creates rating standards.
PPACA preempts any state law that prevents the application of a provision of the PPACA. The PPACA effectively allows
states to adopt and enforce laws that provide greater consumer protections than the PPACA, but any state law that does not
meet the federal minimum standards will be preempted. Pub. L. No. 111–148, s. 1321(d). BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 9
Age, up to a maximum ratio of 3 to 1. This means rates for older adults may not be more than
three times greater than the rates for younger adults.
Tobacco, up to a maximum ratio of 1.5 to 1.
Geographic rating area.
Whether coverage is for an individual or a family.
36
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Section 1. Amends s. 624.438, F.S., by deleting the current definition of “bona fide group,”
which is defined by a cross reference to the 2018 federal rule, 29 C.F.R. 2510-3-5. The
definition of the term, “bona fide group” is created within the section and it is similar but not
identical to the federal definition and requirements. The bill provides that a bona fide group that
is an employee welfare benefit plan includes a group or association which meets the following
requirements:
The primary purpose of the group or association is to offer and provide health coverage to its
member employers and their employees, but the group or association has at least one
substantial business purpose that is unrelated to the offering and providing of health
insurance. A substantial business purpose is considered to exist if the group or association
would be a viable entity in the absence of sponsoring an employee benefit plan.
Each member employer participating in the group health plan is a person acting directly as an
employer of at least one employee who is a participant covered under the plan.
The group or association must have a formal organizational structure with a governing body.
The functions and activities of the group or association are controlled by its member
employers. The control must be present both in form and substance.
The member employers must have a principal place of business in the same region that does
not exceed the boundaries of a single state or a metropolitan area, even if the metropolitan
area includes more than one state.
Eligibility for health coverage offered by the individuals and employers of the association or
group is specified.
The group or association health coverage must comply with the nondiscrimination provisions
of section 627.6699, F.S., as it applies to small group health plans rather than the federal
requirements.
37
Section 627.6699, F.S. allows for the use of modified community rating in
which the premium for each small employer is determined solely on the basis of the eligible
employee’s and eligible dependent’s gender, age, family composition, tobacco use, or
geographic area. In addition, premium adjustments of plus or minus 15 percent of the
approved rate are allowed for claims experience, health status, or duration of coverage may
not be charged to individual employees or dependents. The federal rule does not provide
rating bands. Section 627.654, F.S., provides that a small employer, as defined in s.
627.6699, F.S., may be insured under a policy issued to a small employer health alliance by a
carrier, as defined in s. 627.6699, F.S.
Specifies that the group or association is not a health insurance issuer as described in section
733(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. section
1191b(b)(2), or owned or controlled by a health insurance issuer or by a subsidiary or
36
42 U.S.C. s.18022.
37
Supra note 9. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 10
affiliate of a health insurance issuer, other than to the extent such entities participate in the
group or association in their capacity as member employers of the group or association.
Section 2. Amends s. 627.654, F.S., to provide that a bona fide group, as defined in s.
624.438(1)(b)4., F.S., an association of employers, or a group of individuals may be insured
under an association, including a labor union, if certain conditions are met. The reference to the
federal rule, 29 C.F.R. part 2510.3-5, that defines a bona-fide group is removed and replaced
with a reference to the definition created in ss. 624.438(1)(b)4., F.S.
Section 3. Provides that the bill takes effect upon becoming law.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
Implementation of the bill will clarify the regulations of self-funded MEWAs in Florida.
C. Government Sector Impact:
None. BILL: CS/SB 940 Page 11
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
Under federal law, self-employed employers or sole proprietors that have no employees are
generally not eligible for group coverage. Instead, they may obtain coverage in the individual
market.
38
It is unclear whether such employers would qualify as an employee of a current group
member under Florida law.
39
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends sections 624.438 and 627.654 of the Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
CS by Banking and Insurance on March 29, 2023:
The amendment makes technical and conforming changes.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.
38
45 CFR s. 155.20.
39
See Office of Insurance Regulation, 2023 Legislative Session, SB 940 Analysis (Feb. 22, 2023). On file with Senate
Committee on Banking and Insurance.