Royal

New Federal Guidance Regarding COVID-19 Home Tests May Impact Employers

January 18, 2022

mployers continue to feel the effects of the pandemic as both employees and customers contract COVID-19 and its variants. As the country has adapted, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has approved COVID-19 home testing kits. Although helpful in stopping the spread of COVID-19 and its variants, a new question has emerged: is the cost of a home test kit covered by health insurance? 

The United States Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (collectively, “The Departments”), have just published FAQs, which expand upon existing requirements, and state that group health plans must cover the cost, with or without the involvement of a healthcare provider, so long as the test is taken for “diagnostic purposes.” This mandate imposes a major financial burden on self-insured employers and other providers of group health insurance.

Here is what self-insured employers, and other providers of group health insurance, should know:


  • A group health plan must cover the costs of at home COVID-19 tests for participants either directly (i.e. “direct coverage”) or by requiring participants to pay for the tests upfront and then submit a claim for reimbursement.

  • If the group health plan provides direct coverage at home COVID-19 tests, both through its pharmacy network and a direct-to-consumer shipping program, it may limit reimbursement for these tests from non-preferred pharmacies or other retailers to the lesser of $12 per test or the actual cost of the test.

  • The group health plan must ensure that participants have access to at home COVID-19 tests through an adequate number of retail locations (in-person and online).

  • A group health plan may limit the number of at home COVID-19 tests covered for each participant to no less than eight tests per 30-day period (this limit applies only to tests purchased without a health care provider order or clinical assessment; no limit if the health care provider orders or administers the test following a clinical assessment).

  • A group health plan may require reasonable documentation of proof of purchase with a claim for reimbursement for the cost of an OTC COVID-19 test.

We will keep you updated as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve.

If you have questions about employer healthcare coverage, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: