EBSA Updates National Enforcement Projects and Priorities for FY 2026

The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the federal agency responsible for enforcing ERISA, just announced a major overhaul of its national enforcement projects and priorities for fiscal year 2026. These changes recalibrate the areas that receive heightened attention in EBSA investigations and audits of ERISA plans, ERISA fiduciaries, and ERISA plan service providers. Read our full alert on the updates here.

Tri-Agencies Propose Amendments to Transparency in Coverage Rules 

On December 23, 2025, the DOL, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) issued long-anticipated proposed rules regarding price transparency requirements for non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers (2025 Proposed Rules). The 2025 Proposed Rules amend and augment the existing November 2020 Transparency in Coverage (TIC) Final Rules. 

The 2020 TIC Final Rules require non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers to make available to participants and beneficiaries a self-service tool as well as publicly available, machine-readable files with pricing information to include in-network negotiated rates for covered items and services, out-of-network allowed amounts and billed charges for covered items and services, and in-network negotiated rates and historical net prices for covered prescription drugs. 

The 2025 Proposed Rules respond to the president's February 2025 executive order directing the Departments to implement and enforce price transparency rules mandating the disclosure of actual negotiated rates and prescription drug prices. On May 22, 2025, the Departments announced technical guidance for the machine-readable files to include a schema version to implement changes to the in-network rate file and out-of-network allowed amounts and billed charges machine-readable file. On June 2, 2025, the Departments issued a request for information regarding the prescription drug machine-readable file disclosure requirements in the TIC Final Rules.  

In its preamble, the Departments describe the 2025 Proposed Rules as addressing some of the issues presented by implementation of the 2020 TIC Final Rules, including the unwieldy size of the machine-readable files, ambiguity with respect to some of the data disclosures, and "misalignment" with the 2019 Hospital Price Transparency Rule, 84 FR 65524 (Nov. 27, 2019), "that makes comparing data across disclosures challenging." 

The 2025 Proposed Rules aim to "improve the standardization, accuracy, and accessibility of public pricing disclosures in line with the goals of the Executive Order 14221," including:

• Adding new requirements to the machine-readable file rules, such as "new contextual files and additional data elements like product type, network name, and enrollment counts" 
• Changing the reporting cadence from monthly to quarterly for in-network rates and out-of-network allowed amount machine-readable files
• Requiring plans and issuers to disclose in-network rates by network rather than plan or policy
• Allowing for percentage-of-billed charges reporting when the dollar amount is not known in advance
• Improving the "findability" of the machine-readable files by "requiring a text file and footer with website URLs and contact information for the files"
• Requiring that pricing information made available through the self-service tool (and in paper upon request) also be made available by phone, and establishing that this requirement also satisfies section 114 of the No Surprises Act (including for grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering grandfathered group and individual health insurance coverage that are not otherwise subject to the 2025 Proposed Rules)

The 2025 Proposed Rules also seek to alleviate duplication in the reporting required under the 2020 TIC Final Rules by allowing, under certain circumstances, service providers of self-insured group health plans to report some of the required information for more than one plan, policy, or contract, including for different plan sponsors and across different health insurance markets, and to aggregate information regarding allowed amounts for more than one self-insured group health plan, including those offered by different plan sponsors. 

The public comment period for the 2025 Proposed Rules ends February 23, 2026. 

Supreme Court Set to Hear Intel 401(k) Meaningful Benchmark Case 

On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Anderson, et al., v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., No. 25-498, to resolve a growing circuit split over the pleading standard for ERISA fiduciary breach claims premised on investment underperformance. The petition, filed on October 20, 2025, asks the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit decision affirming dismissal of the petitioners' breach of fiduciary duty claims for failing to plead a "meaningful benchmark" against which fund performance could be compared.

The question in Intel mirrors the issue currently pending in Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Johnson, No. 24 1030. In Parker-Hannifin, the defendants seek certiorari for the Supreme Court's review of the Sixth Circuit's holding that a plaintiff need not allege a meaningful benchmark to plead a plausible imprudence claim based on investment underperformance. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit in Intel held that ERISA plaintiffs must identify an appropriate comparator fund with similar strategies, objectives, and risk profiles. Petitioners in Intel have therefore asked the Court to clarify whether an ERISA plaintiff asserting underperformance must allege such a benchmark to plausibly claim that a fiduciary failed to exercise the requisite care, skill, prudence, or diligence under ERISA.

Although the government did not file an amicus brief in direct support of the Intel petition, the U.S. Solicitor General and the DOL addressed the same benchmark issue in December in an amicus brief submitted at the Supreme Court's request in Parker-Hannifin. While the government disagreed with the Sixth Circuit's pleading standard, it advised the Court that the meaningful benchmark question warrants resolution, noting that the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits require plaintiffs to plead a meaningful benchmark, whereas the Sixth Circuit's approach diverges from this consensus.

The Court's resolution of Intel is poised to provide much needed clarity on the pleading requirements for ERISA fiduciary breach claims based on fund performance. Should the Supreme Court adopt the majority view that a meaningful benchmark is required, it may limit the number of underperformance cases that survive motions to dismiss and advance to costly discovery. Conversely, if the Supreme Court endorses the Sixth Circuit's approach, plaintiffs may find it easier to advance underperformance claims past the pleadings stage.

The information contained in this communication is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. For more information, please contact one of the senders or your existing Miller & Chevalier lawyer contact. The invitation to contact the firm and its lawyers is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new lawyer-client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

This, and related communications, are protected by copyright laws and treaties. You may make a single copy for personal use. You may make copies for others, but not for commercial purposes. If you give a copy to anyone else, it must be in its original, unmodified form, and must include all attributions of authorship, copyright notices, and republication notices. Except as described above, it is unlawful to copy, republish, redistribute, and/or alter this presentation without prior written consent of the copyright holder.