---
type: source
title: "Trump Administration Pauses Enforcement of 2024 MHPAEA Final Rule — New Provisions Non-Enforced, Older Requirements Remain"
author: "Crowell & Moring LLP / DOL Statement"
url: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/trump-administration-pauses-enforcement-of-the-mhpaea-final-rule
date: 2025-05-15
domain: health
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [mhpaea, mental-health-parity, enforcement, trump, dol, ebsa, regulatory, behavioral-health]
intake_tier: research-task
---

## Content

On May 15, 2025, the Departments of Labor (DOL), HHS, and Treasury (the "Tri-Agencies") issued a notice of non-enforcement stating they "will not enforce the 2024 Final Rule or otherwise pursue enforcement actions, based on a failure to comply that occurs prior to a final decision in the litigation, plus an additional 18 months."

Context:
- On May 9, 2025, the Tri-Agencies filed a Motion for Abeyance in a lawsuit challenging the 2024 MHPAEA regulations (filed by ERIC — the ERISA Industry Committee)
- The enforcement pause applies ONLY to "portions of the 2024 Final Rule that are new in relation to the 2013 final rule"
- The 2024 Final Rule had added: detailed requirements for comparative analyses of Non-Quantitative Treatment Limitations (NQTLs), requirements to evaluate outcome data, prohibitions on discriminatory factors and evidentiary standards, "meaningful benefits" requirements
- The pause does NOT relieve employers of the requirement to maintain written comparative analyses under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA 2021)
- The older 2013 MHPAEA requirements remain in effect and enforceable

What the 2024 Final Rule had required (now paused):
- Insurers must evaluate whether their NQTL design and application, including network composition, is comparable for mental health vs. medical/surgical benefits
- Outcome data evaluation — insurers must look at actual outcomes (like network adequacy, out-of-network utilization rates) to detect disparities
- Prohibition on using discriminatory factors or evidentiary standards not applied to medical/surgical benefits
- "Meaningful benefits" requirement — mental health benefits must be meaningful, not token coverage

Legal backdrop: ERIC (representing large employers) challenged the 2024 Final Rule as exceeding statutory authority. The Trump DOL chose to pause enforcement rather than defend the rule in court, effectively siding with the employer/insurer challenge.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the structural enforcement mechanism for mental health parity. The 2024 Final Rule's outcome-data requirement was specifically designed to catch the reimbursement rate differential (payers not raising MH reimbursement) — the precise mechanism the 4th MHPAEA Report identified. Pausing the rule removes the tool that would have most directly addressed the structural reimbursement gap.

**What surprised me:** The pause applies to the provisions that would have required evaluating OUTCOME DATA — which is exactly what would have exposed the reimbursement differential mechanism. The older comparative analysis (which plans already know how to game) remains. This is a precise rollback of the enforcement tool most relevant to Belief 3's structural mechanism.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A clear timeline for when the court will decide, which would start the "18 months" clock. Without court decision, the pause is indefinite.

**KB connections:**
- Session 31 finding: 4th MHPAEA Report (March 2026) documented payers deliberately NOT applying same reimbursement methodology to mental health networks — the 2024 Final Rule's outcome data requirement would have addressed this; the pause removes that enforcement tool
- Confirms Belief 3 (structural misalignment is structural): enforcement rollback reveals the structural mechanism has no regulatory check
- The mental health supply gap claim — this compounds it

**Extraction hints:**
- CLAIM: "Trump administration's MHPAEA 2024 rule enforcement pause specifically suspended outcome-data evaluation requirements — the tool that would have revealed reimbursement rate discrimination — while leaving in place procedural requirements that payers already know how to satisfy"
- This is a MECHANISM claim, not just "enforcement weakened"
- Scope: applies to employer-sponsored plans (ERISA), NOT to individual/small group markets (which CMS enforces)

**Context:** ERIC represents the nation's largest employers — the same employers whose GLP-1 behavioral mandates are growing. This creates a political economy tension: large employers pushing back on MHPAEA enforcement while simultaneously adding GLP-1 behavioral requirements for their own cost management.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: Mental health parity enforcement claims + Belief 3 (structural misalignment)
WHY ARCHIVED: Documents the specific regulatory rollback that removes the enforcement mechanism most directly relevant to the structural reimbursement disparity. The "outcome data evaluation" requirement was paused — not just a generic enforcement slowdown.
EXTRACTION HINT: The claim should focus on the SPECIFICITY of what was paused (outcome data = reimbursement discrimination detection) vs. what remains (comparative analysis = procedural compliance theater). This is the precise mechanism story.
