September's fiduciary developments for self-funded plans: the Fifth Circuit's en banc Aramark v. Aetna argument, new parity enforcement guidance, and a 2027 IDR deadline.

The Labor Department just narrowed mental health parity enforcement to three areas. Here is what that changes about your plan's comparative analysis, and what it does not.

This month's fiduciary compliance update covers the FTC's proposed Caremark order, a corrected Fifth Circuit case, and a new circuit split on TPA liability.

Trade press now frames independent payment integrity as a fiduciary safeguard. Here is what self-funded plan sponsors and brokers should take from the shift.

"Does your compensation structure create a prohibited transaction under ERISA §406?"

Kelli Hammerl, acting regional director for EBSA in Chicago, summarized the agency’s position: “The Department of Labor will enforce the law and hold fiduciaries accountable for violations.”

A court-unsealed expert report in Comau v. BCBSM exposed $8.1M unreconciled and $7.3M overpayments. What it reveals about every self-funded plan’s blind spot.

The next “401(k) fee crisis” will not be about retirement plans. It is happening in healthcare. Courts are applying the fiduciary standards from 401(k) fee litigation to self-funded health plans, where hidden costs are buried in ASO, PBM, and Stop-Loss contracts. Learn where these fees hide and how to protect your plan.

Aetna has issued a 60-day notice asking plan sponsors to authorize it to control litigation decisions for their plan. Self-funded plan sponsors should review and opt out by the July 30, 2026 deadline.

A landmark Blue Health Intelligence analysis quantifies AI-driven upcoding in employer plans. For self-funded fiduciaries, it is a direct hit to plan assets and a fiduciary wake-up call.

CAA 2026, the DOL's enforcement overhaul, and Schlichter's expanding litigation campaign have shifted the ground beneath every self-funded health plan fiduciary. Here is what to do now.

Most plan sponsors ask how much they will save. Their ERISA counsel should be asking whether the vendor's percentage-of-savings compensation creates a prohibited transaction under Section 406. Here is the legal argument, the Post-Pay contingency gap, and why a fixed per-claim fee model is structurally immune.