Photo of Megan Woodford

Megan Woodford

Megan Woodford represents both public and private companies, as well as individuals, in connection with a broad range of employee compensation and benefits matters. She advises on the design, administration, and implementation of compensation arrangements, including equity incentive plans and executive employment agreements.

Megan counsels clients on the compensation and benefits aspects of mergers, acquisitions, and other strategic transactions. Her practice also covers tax-qualified retirement and welfare plans.

Megan has an active pro bono practice, with a focus on assisting women’s rights organizations.

Contact:Read more about Megan WoodfordEmail

On October 29, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury released the final “Transparency in Coverage” rule. The rule requires most group health plans and issuers to provide individualized cost-sharing information to participants, beneficiaries and enrollees upon request, and to publicly disclose in-network provider negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts and drug pricing information. The final rule also amends the medical loss ratio (MLR) rules to allow issuers to receive credit in the calculations for savings they share with enrollees utilizing lower-cost, higher value providers.

The final regulations are similar to the proposed regulations issued on November 15, 2019 (described in this previous blog post). While the proposed rule had included a request for information regarding how providing quality measurements and reporting could be used to complement cost-sharing information, the final rules do not address health care quality and continue to focus on price transparency.Continue Reading Final Rules Require Health Plans to Publicly Disclose Reimbursement Rates

In response to the growing unemployment numbers due to business slowdowns across the country, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provides expanded unemployment insurance (UI) benefits to workers impacted by COVID-19.  The move is no doubt well intentioned, but serious questions have been raised about the specific benefit design adopted by Congress and the ability of state unemployment agencies—hardly models of efficiency in the best of times—to respond to the deluge of claims now inundating them.  In fact, one of the potentially most attractive UI features in the new law—its short-time compensation provisions—seems likely to face serious obstacles to implementation due to lack of administrative resources and the vagaries of state law.
Continue Reading Unemployment Insurance Benefits under the CARES Act

As reported in our Client Alert, the new Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act includes provisions to increase the use of short-time compensation (STC) programs (also known as work sharing or shared-work programs). Section 2108 of the CARES Act provides federal funding for 100% of the STC paid by states with programs already in place. In addition, Section 2109 provides federal funding for 50% of the STC paid by states that currently do not have formal programs but implement arrangements, and Section 2110 provides grants for implementing and improving STC programs.
Continue Reading The CARES Act and Short-Time Compensation Programs

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury released a new “Transparency in Coverage” proposed rule that requires most group health plans and issuers to publicly disclose negotiated rates with in-network providers and historical data showing amounts paid for covered items or services furnished by out-of-network providers.  In addition, group health plans and issuers would be required to create a self-service website through which participants could obtain estimates of out-of-pocket costs for covered items or services.  The proposed rule implements provisions of the Affordable Care Act and is intended to help consumers shop for medical services from lower-cost, higher-value providers.
Continue Reading Group Health Plans Face Automatic Public Disclosure of Negotiated Rates and Plan Payments

On October 1, 2018, the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (the “Act”) came into effect, creating several new requirements for noncompetition agreements between employers and service providers based in Massachusetts. The new law does not impact agreements entered into before October 1; however, going forward, employers should evaluate when to seek a noncompetition agreement from a service provider and should update any form agreements to comply with the Act’s requirements. In this post, we highlight five considerations to help guide employers as they revisit their practices for Massachusetts workers.
Continue Reading New Rules for Noncompetition Agreements in Massachusetts

This article originally appeared in Law360.

Companies have had a lot to digest since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TJCA”) late last year.  But for executive compensation attorneys and professionals who work with or advise public companies, the elimination of the tax deduction for performance-based compensation under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code was perhaps the most significant change brought about by tax reform.  Since then, the changes to section 162(m) have been top of mind for everyone involved with structuring executive compensation arrangements and strategies at public companies.

Among the many questions companies face following the changes to section 162(m) is whether to continue seeking periodic shareholder approval for the performance criteria under their incentive plans.  Before tax reform, companies were generally able to deduct performance-based compensation if, among other things, the performance criteria used in the arrangement were approved by shareholder vote at least once every five years.  The repeal of the performance-based compensation exception eliminated this requirement.  However, there may be other reasons why companies might opt to continue seeking shareholder approval, even if it will no longer allow the compensation to be deductible.

We researched what large public companies decided to do this year with regard to shareholder approval of their performance criteria by reviewing the most recent proxy statements filed by S&P 100 companies.  We discovered that most companies that under pre-TJCA law would have been scheduled to seek shareholder approval for their performance criteria (because they had previously done so five years ago) elected not to do so this year.  Although a limited data set, these findings may be instructive for other public companies who are considering how to approach this matter in future years.Continue Reading Incentive Plans and Shareholder Approval After Tax Reform

Part of Our Series on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

Employers generally may deduct reasonable salaries and other compensation paid to their employees. However, section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a $1 million annual limit on the amount of compensation that a publicly held corporation can deduct with respect to each of its “covered employees.”

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 substantially revises section 162(m) in ways that will significantly limit the amount of compensation that many public companies will be able to deduct.Continue Reading Significant Reductions to Deductible Pay at Public Companies