On January 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed on a bipartisan basis HR 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7148). If it also wins passage in the Senate, the bill would, among other Trump administration priorities, impose new rules and requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacy benefit administration more generally. As with prior federal legislative proposals, HR 7148 attempts to bring more transparency to the administration of pharmacy benefits for both fully insured and self-funded groups and would impose enhanced transparency requirements for PBMs contracting with Medicare Part D prescription drug plans PDP sponsors. Specifically, among other requirements, HR 7148 proposes the following new rules and regulations impacting PBM arrangements:

What Are Trump Accounts?

A Trump account is a type of individual retirement account (IRA) established for the exclusive benefit of a child and designated as a “Trump account” at inception. Created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the OBBBA), the account is governed by new Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provisions, including §530A and §128.[1] Trump accounts operate under special rules intended to seed and simplify long-horizon investing for children through the year before they turn 18 — referred to in the rules as the “growth period.” After the growth period, most special Trump account rules fall away, and thereafter the account largely functions like a standard traditional IRA under §408(a).

On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Guardian Flight, leaving in place the Fifth Circuit’s June 2025 decision that we covered in our prior post (available here). As a result, within the Fifth Circuit, providers cannot rely on the No Surprises Act (NSA) itself to enforce Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) awards in court and face a heightened standing bar for ERISA-based claims where patients are insulated from financial harm. And the persuasive effect of the Fifth Circuit’s holding is bolstered nationwide.

In this installment of our Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Preparing For 2026 series, hosts Constance Brewster and Jeff Banish walk employers through the new rules on mandatory Roth catch-up contributions and the optional “super catch-up contributions,” as we approach 2026. This episode distills what’s changing, who’s affected, updated limits for 2026, and practical steps plan sponsors should take now to prepare for 2026.

On November 24, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum disposition in Dedicato Treatment Center, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., affirming dismissal of an out-of-network provider’s state-law claims as preempted by ERISA’s remedial scheme. The panel’s brief decision underscores that the Court’s 2024 decision in Bristol Holdings (discussed here) applies broadly to state-law causes of action arising from pre-service verification-of-benefits and authorization communications, even where a provider also pleads an alternative ERISA benefits claim pursuant to an assignment of benefits from the member. Although not precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the disposition is a clear, persuasive affirmation of Bristol’s reach.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the 2026 cost-of-living adjustments to the dollar limitations for qualified retirement plans and other benefits, and the Social Security Administration announced its own cost-of-living adjustments for 2026. Most of the dollar limits, including the elective deferral contribution limit for 401(k), 403(b), and 457(b) plans; the annual compensation limit under 401(a)(17); and the maximum annual contribution limit under Code Section 415(c) will increase from 2025 limits. The dollar limit for catch-up contributions for participants who attain age 60,61,62, or 63 in 2026 will remain the same.

California recently enacted Section 16608 of the California Business and Professions Code, which bans agreements that require employees to pay a “penalty, fee or cost” upon termination, effective January 1, 2026. 

Bonuses that are subject to repayment will be prohibited by this new law, unless they satisfy the following requirements: 

Last May, we provided a client alert about a recent federal district court case (Spence v. American Airlines, No. 4:23-cv-00552-O, 2025 WL 225127, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2025)), in which a plan sponsor and certain plan fiduciaries were found to have breached their ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty based primarily on conduct related to proxy voting of securities held in certain of the 401(k) plans’ investment funds. At that time, the court left open the question of whether the breach resulted in any damages to the participants.

Join Lydia Parker and Laura Ferguson, partners in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Employee Benefits + Executive Compensation Practice, as they discuss the top five health and welfare updates from 2025 to prepare you for 2026, from significant legislative changes to emerging litigation trends that are reshaping the landscape for plan sponsors.

On September 9, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Advisory Opinion 2025-03A addressing the following question: Are awards of restricted stock units (RSUs) that permit post-employment vesting considered a “pension plan” subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)? For the reasons discussed below, the DOL answered, no, the RSUs are not subject to ERISA.