Back to Federal guidance

Mid-Continent health trust remains a MEWA

Summary The Mid-Continent health trust asked EBSA to reconsider an earlier finding that its health program was a multiple employer welfare arrangement. EBSA said its joint and reinsurance accounts were part of an arrangement serving employees of multiple employers, even though each employer’s payments and claims were tracked separately. It reaffirmed that the program itself was not an ERISA welfare plan and that states could regulate it within ERISA’s limits. The letter leaves its claimed fully insured status undecided.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Document number
Advisory Opinion 1996-05A
Date issued
March 11, 1996
Status
Unknown
EBSA's index does not mark withdrawn or superseded opinions; still posted on dol.gov as of 2026-10-24.
Status last verified October 24, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

The current status of this document is unclear
EBSA's index does not mark withdrawn or superseded opinions; still posted on dol.gov as of 2026-10-24. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration
Advisory Opinion 1996-05A
March 11, 1996

[Recipient address omitted]

Dear Mr. Kelley:

This is in reply to your request that the Department of Labor reconsider or clarify Opinion 95-06A (issued May 18, 1995) to Mr. Tom Portier of the Louisiana Department of Insurance. In Opinion 95-06A, the Department held that the group health benefits program offered by Mid-Continent Medical Benefits Trust (MCMBT) is a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) within the meaning of section 3(40) of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), that such program is not an employee benefit plan covered under that title, and that section 514(a) of that title would not preempt state regulation of MCMBT, Profession Administration Group (PAG)1, or "the pooled custodial account" maintained by these entities.

In your correspondence, you assert the program offered by MCMBT is not a MEWA because a joint custodial account maintained under an agreement between MCMBT and LFB Insurance and Reinsurance, International Division of La Fenix Boliviana S.A. De Seguros Y Reaseguros (La Fenix Boliviana) is not a pooled custodial account that is maintained by MCMBT. It is your position that the joint custodial account is maintained by La Fenix Boliviana as a reserve for future claims liabilities for the employee benefit plans it reinsures through its contracts with MCMBT. You indicate that MCMBT's signature is one of three needed to release funds from the joint custodial account. Further, you advise that no claims are paid out of the joint custodial account but are paid by MCMBT out of a separate reinsurance account into which plan contributions are deposited and that MCMBT transfers excess amounts from this reinsurance account to the joint custodial account to be held in reserve. It is your position that this reinsurance account is also an account maintained by La Fenix Boliviana. Finally, you advise that each employee benefit plan's contributions and claims payments are individually tracked and each plan is experience-rated on its own individual basis.

Section 3(40)(A) of Title I of ERISA generally defines the term "MEWA" to include any plan, fund, or arrangement that is established or maintained for the purpose of providing welfare benefits to the employees of two or more employers. Based on the information submitted, it is the Department's position that the joint custodial account and the reinsurance account are part of an arrangement established and maintained by MCMBT that is described in section 3(40)(A) that, therefore, constitutes a MEWA within the meaning of that section. The fact that each employer's payments or claims experience is separately "tracked" does not affect our position.

We see no basis in the information you submitted to alter the position taken in Opinion 95-06A that the program offered by MCMBT is not an employee welfare benefit plan for the purposes of Title I of ERISA and you stated in your request that you agreed with this position. Accordingly, although a state may not regulate a separate employee welfare benefit plan established or maintained by an employer that adopts the program offered by MCMBT to provide benefits to its employees, a state may still regulate MCMBT, PAG, the joint accounts described above, and the program of benefits that MCMBT offers to employers in that state, at least to the extent provided in section 514(b)(6)(A).

Finally, you ask that the Department "assume that all benefits of MCMBT administered plans are guaranteed by policies of reinsurance issued by La Fenix Boliviana" and "that La Fenix [Boliviana] is admitted as an insurer in American Samoa." As stated in Opinion 95-06A, the Department takes no position on whether La Fenix Boliviana is an entity qualified to conduct business in a state in which it issued reinsurance contracts to an employee benefit plan administered by MCMBT. Further, we note that the reinsurance contract between MCMBT and La Fenix Boliviana reinsures certain contracts specified in Schedule A of that reinsurance contract. Copies of those contracts identified in Schedule A have not been submitted to the Department and the Department, therefore, does not take any position whether the program of benefits offered by MCMBT is "fully insured" within the meaning of section 514(b)(6)(A)(i) of ERISA.

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1. Accordingly, it is issued subject to the provisions of that procedure, including section 10 thereof relating to the effect of advisory opinions.

Sincerely,

Susan G. Lahne
Chief, Division of Coverage
Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Footnotes

  1. PAG administers the group health benefit program offered by MCMBT.

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace