Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        Retiree Medical Coverage: Just Get the COBRA Waiver

        by Karen K. Hartford on October 2, 2023

        The interaction between employer-provided retiree medical coverage and COBRA[1] is complex. Many employers incorrectly assume they do not have to offer COBRA at retirement if they offer a retiree medical plan or a retiree health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), but the calculus is not that simple. Whether there is a requirement to offer COBRA, and, if so, to whom and when, depends on several factors, as discussed below. Given the recent rise in COBRA litigation and the potential penalties for COBRA notice violations, we recommend that employers routinely seek informed waivers of COBRA coverage at retirement.

        COBRA Continuation Coverage

        The premise of COBRA is straightforward: if a group health plan covered individual (a “qualified beneficiary”) experiences a qualifying event and that event results in a loss of coverage under the group health plan, COBRA continuation coverage must be offered for the time periods specified in the law.

        COBRA continuation coverage is the same coverage that the individual had on the day before the qualifying event. COBRA enrollees are responsible for 100% of the cost of the coverage (both the employee and the employer portions) plus up to a 2% administrative fee.

        Two COBRA-qualifying events apply to employees and dependents alike:

        • the employee’s termination of employment, and
        • the employee’s reduction in hours of employment.

        If one of these events results in a loss of coverage under the group health plan, the plan must offer the affected qualified beneficiaries 18 months of COBRA continuation coverage.

        In addition, qualified beneficiaries who are covered dependents may experience one of the following qualifying events:

        • the covered employee’s death,
        • the covered employee becoming entitled to Medicare,[2]
        • divorce or legal separation from the covered employee, or
        • a dependent child ceasing to be a dependent under the terms of the plan.

        When one of these events results in a loss of coverage under the group health plan, the plan must offer affected qualified beneficiaries 36 months of COBRA continuation coverage.

        Retirement as a Qualifying Event

        When a covered employee retires, they experience a qualifying event – termination of employment. The question then becomes whether such an event results in a loss of coverage requiring a COBRA offer.

        Retiree Medical Coverage – Identical Coverage Under Same Plan

        If an employer extends coverage for retirees under the same active employee plan that the employee had pre-retirement, and the coverage – including the cost of coverage to the individual – is identical both pre- and post-retirement, there is no loss of coverage and therefore no requirement to offer COBRA.

        CAUTION: In this circumstance, if the extended coverage is subsequently lost prior to the applicable maximum COBRA period (i.e., 18 or 36 months), then the retiree and any covered dependents will experience a COBRA qualifying event at the time of the subsequent loss, requiring an offer of COBRA continuation coverage for the applicable maximum period.

        This outcome can be avoided if the employer requires all retirees and their covered dependents to sign a COBRA waiver at retirement as a condition of participating in the employer’s retiree medical coverage. Note that COBRA waivers do not become effective until the COBRA election period (typically 60 days) has expired, and qualified beneficiaries may make changes to their election until it becomes effective.

        Retiree Medical Coverage – Different Coverage or a Separate Plan

        If an employer offers its retirees coverage under the same plan as the retiree had pre-retirement but on different terms (i.e., different benefit coverage, different cost to the individual) or coverage under a separate plan, the retiree is considered under the law and regulations to have experienced a loss of coverage and must be offered COBRA. A loss of coverage will be deemed to occur even if the retiree is eligible for Medicare and the employer offers a Medicare supplement plan or a contribution to a retiree HRA to be used for Medicare premiums, and even if the employer coverage is more generous than Medicare or the employer fully subsidizes the retiree coverage. Put simply, when an employer offers retirees coverage on different terms or coverage under a separate plan, it cannot avoid its obligation to offer COBRA. The employer can, however, condition participation in its retiree medical coverage upon the waiver of COBRA.

        Retiree Medical Coverage Offered for a Fixed Period: If at the time of retirement an employer offers the retiring employee a choice between COBRA or retiree coverage for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months, 36 months, etc.), and the employee elects the retiree coverage, no additional COBRA right will arise at the end of the fixed period.

        CAUTION: If retiree coverage is offered for a fixed period and a second COBRA qualifying event, such as the death of the retiree, occurs before the end of such fixed period and results in the loss of coverage for covered dependents, such dependents will be entitled to an offer of COBRA at the time of the loss.

        This outcome can be avoided if the employer takes steps to ensure that:

        • its plan documents specify that retiree coverage of dependents will also last for the specified fixed period and will not be lost upon the occurrence of any subsequent COBRA qualifying event that occurs prior to the end of that fixed period; and
        • all qualified beneficiaries are informed at the time of the employee’s retirement that by electing retiree coverage for a fixed period, they have waived future COBRA rights.

        Retiree Medical Coverage Offered for an Indefinite Period: If at the time of retirement an employer offers the retiring employee a choice between COBRA or retiree coverage for a period of time that cannot be quantified at the start (e.g., until the occurrence of a future event such as the retiree’s death or the retiree’s entitlement to Medicare), the employer would be well-advised to collect COBRA waivers from all qualified beneficiaries. Without the waivers, any qualified beneficiary who subsequently loses coverage due to the occurrence of a COBRA qualifying event must be offered COBRA.

        Conclusion

        The interaction between retiree medical coverage and COBRA is complicated; the penalties and excise taxes for COBRA notice violations can be costly; and lawsuits for failure to offer COBRA or to compel coverage can be costly and time-consuming. Small changes in plan language and taking action to seek informed waivers from qualified beneficiaries can make a big difference. Please contact a member of Verrill’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group if you have questions regarding retiree medical coverage and COBRA.


        [1] COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended. It is a federal law that applies to employers with 20 or more employees and provides employees with the right to continue coverage under their employer’s group health plans for a limited time.

        [2] The details regarding the extent to which Medicare entitlement is or is not a COBRA-qualifying event is beyond the scope of this blog post.

        Benefits Law Update

        Verrill’s Benefits Law Update blog delivers timely insights and practical guidance on the ever-evolving landscape of employee benefits and executive compensation. Our blog provides up-to-date analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including timely updates on developments in law affecting employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements.

        Key Contact

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...
        Published Works

        Francesco De Vito Authors Article in the Journal of the American College of Mortgage Attorneys

        Verrill Partner Frank De Vito authored an article featured in the Spring 2026 issue of The Abstract, the journal of the American College of Mortgage...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Recent FinCEN Advisory Highlights Rising Health Care Fraud Risk for Financial Institutions

        As the federal government intensifies its “whole of government” approach to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, particularly in Federal Health Care...
        Press Releases

        Two Verrill Attorneys Featured in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers List

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill attorneys Roger A. Clement, Jr. and Robert J. Keach have been featured in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global...
        Published Works

        Verrill Attorney Mark Googins Co-Authors Maine Commercial Lending Handbook

        Verrill attorney Mark Googins has co-authored the Maine Commercial Lending Handbook (Second Edition), published March 2026.  A trusted, practical...