Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to federal law, California’s Medi-Cal program requires beneficiaries to use other health coverage (OHC) they may have before accessing Medi-Cal benefits. The state Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) maintains a database with codes that indicate whether a Medi-Cal beneficiary has OHC and, to some extent, the scope of that coverage. The codes are available to providers when a beneficiary seeks services. Medi-Cal beneficiaries filed suit. Because DHCS allegedly permits Medi-Cal providers to refuse nonemergency services to beneficiaries with OHC, and because the codes are not always correct and the information is limited, beneficiaries may be improperly denied service and referred to other providers even when there is no OHC available for the requested service; beneficiaries may experience delays in receiving nonemergency care and may be subject to a higher copayment than permitted under Medi-Cal. Plaintiffs argued that the assignment of an OHC code should trigger notice and a hearing. The trial and appeals courts rejected their arguments. Neither Welfare and Institutions Code 10950 nor regulation 50951 nor the California Constitution requires DHCS to provide a hearing or notice when it assigns an OHC code. Plaintiffs did not establish any violation of a ministerial duty subject to enforcement by a writ of mandate. View "Marquez v. Dept. of Health Care Servs." on Justia Law

The appeals before the Tenth Circuit in this opinion concerned the regulations (as a part of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA")) that required group health plans to cover contraceptive services for women as a form of preventive care ("Mandate"). In response to religious concerns, the Departments implementing the ACA (Health and Human Services ("HHS"), Labor, and Treasury) adopted a regulation that exempted religious employers (churches and their integrated auxiliaries) from covering contraceptives. When religious non-profit organizations complained about their omission from this exemption, the Departments adopted a regulation that allowed them to opt out of providing, paying for, or facilitating contraceptive coverage. Under this regulation, a religious non-profit organization could opt out by delivering a form to their group health plan’s health insurance issuer or third-party administrator or by sending a notification to HHS. The Plaintiffs in the cases here were religious non-profit organizations. They argued that complying with the Mandate or the accommodation scheme imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise. The Plaintiffs argued the Mandate and the accommodation scheme violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Religion and Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. While Tenth Circuit recognized the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ beliefs and arguments, it concluded the accommodation scheme relieved Plaintiffs of their obligations under the Mandate and did not substantially burden their religious exercise under RFRA or infringe upon their First Amendment rights. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, (6 F.Supp. 3d 1225 (D. Colo. 2013)), and reversed the district courts’ grants of a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs in "Southern Nazarene University v. Sebelius," (No. CIV-13-1015-F, 2013 WL 6804265 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 23, 2013)), and "Reaching Souls International, Inc. v. Burwell," (No. CIV-13-1092-D, 2013 WL 6804259 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 20, 2013)). View "Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Prentice Delon Hyler sought health care services from Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC (Plaintiff) after she was injured in an automobile accident. Hyler executed an “Assignment of Rights” to Plaintiff for medical benefits payable to Hyler by Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie was the automobile liability insurance provider for the opposing driver involved in the accident. Erie and Hyler entered into a settlement agreement providing that Erie would pay Hyler $8,510 for claims relating to the accident. Plaintiff sued both Erie and Hyler seeking to recover the $5,010 it was owed from Hyler. The trial court granted Erie’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Assignment of Rights was not a valid assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the assignment in this case was ineffective. View "Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC v. Hyler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a health insurance company that offers a choice of federal government-regulated alternatives to Medicare known as Medicare Advantage plans. These plans allow Medicare-eligible individuals to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies. Those companies are reimbursed by the government for health care services provided to the plans’ members. Before the Supreme Judicial Court was Plaintiff’s demand for indemnification to cover losses resulting from health care claims for unprovided services paid through Plaintiff’s computer system. At issue was the coverage available to Plaintiff pursuant to Rider #3 of a financial institution bond issued by Defendant. The bond insured Plaintiff against various losses, and the Rider amended the bond to provide indemnification specifically for computer systems fraud. When Plaintiff suffered more than $18 million in losses for payment for fraudulent claims for services never actually performed under its Medicare Advantage plans, Plaintiff sought payment from Defendant for its post-deductible losses. Defendant denied coverage, and Plaintiff sued. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Rider applies to losses resulting directly from fraudulent access, not to losses from the content submitted by authorized users. View "Universal Am. Corp. v Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA" on Justia Law

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C 18001) includes “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” requirements, which bar insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on health; requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or make a payment to the IRS, unless the cost of buying insurance would exceed eight percent of that individual’s income; and seeks to make insurance more affordable by giving refundable tax credits to individuals with household incomes between 100 per cent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The Act requires creation of an “Exchange” in each state— a marketplace to compare and purchase insurance plans; the federal government will establish “such Exchange” if the state does not. The Act provides that tax credits “shall be allowed” for any “applicable taxpayer,” only if the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. 18031],” An IRS regulation interprets that language as making credits available regardless of whether the exchange is established by a state or the federal government. Plaintiffs live in Virginia, which has a federal exchange. They argued Virginia’s Exchange does not qualify as “an Exchange established by the State,” so they should not receive any tax credits. That would make the cost of buying insurance more than eight percent of their income, exempting them from the coverage requirement. The district court dismissed their suit. The Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed. Tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange. Given that the text is ambiguous, the Court looked to the broader structure of the Act and concluded that plaintiffs’ interpretation would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in that manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every state, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. View "King v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Allstate Insurance Company petitioned for review of a court of appeals' judgment that reversed the dismissal of a breach of assignment claim brought by Medical Lien Management (MLM). The district court effectively construed MLM's Lien and Security Agreement with a motor vehicle accident victim (upon which the underlying complaint was premised), as failing to assign the victim's right to the proceeds of his personal injury lawsuit against Allstate's insured. The court of appeals found a valid assignment to MLM all rights to the future proceeds from the personal injury claim in an amount equal to the costs of medical services paid for by MLM, as well as a sufficient allegation in the complaint of an enforceable obligation by Allstate to pay the assigned sums to MLM. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the court of appeals erred in finding the purported assignment in this case. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Medical Lien Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Across the state, plaintiffs were filing complaints against health care providers from whom they sought treatment following automobile accidents and with whom their health care insurers had contracted reimbursement rates for the services rendered. At issue was the legality of these providers' policy of collecting or attempting to collect the undiscounted rate from the insured if a liability insurer may be liable, implemented through the filing of medical liens against plaintiffs' lawsuits and settlements pursuant to the health care provider lien statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the appellate courts of this state on the issue of whether a class action is the superior method for adjudicating actions brought pursuant to the Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act ("Balance Billing Act"). After review, the Court found plaintiffs in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal proceeded as a class, while plaintiffs in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal were denied class certification. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found the class action was superior to any other available method for a fair and efficient adjudication of the common controversy over the disputed billing and lien practices. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit. Finding all other requirements for class certification properly met, the Court reinstated the judgment of the trial court. View "Baker v. PHC-Minden, L.P." on Justia Law

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) creates “navigators,” to assist consumers in purchasing health insurance from exchanges, 42 U.S.C. 18031(i), and authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish standards for navigators and exchanges. HHS regulations recognize: federal navigators, certified application counselors (CACs), and non-navigator assistance personnel. They conduct many of the same activities, but federal navigators have more extensive duties. Plaintiffs, federally-certified counselor designated organizations, employ CACs. The federal government established a Missouri Federally Facilitated Exchange. The Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act (HIMIA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 376.2000, regulates “person[s] that, for compensation, provide[] information or services in connection with eligibility, enrollment, or program specifications of any health benefit exchange.” Regulatory provisions dictate what state navigators and cannot do. Plaintiffs challenged: the definition of state navigators; three substantive provisions; and penalty provisions. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the ACA preempted HIMIA. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, finding likelihood of success in challenges to HIMIA requirements that: state navigators refrain from providing information about health insurance plans not offered by the exchange; that in some circumstances, the navigator must advise consultation with a licensed insurance producer regarding private coverage; and that CACs provide information about different health insurance plans and clarify the distinctions. The court vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that ACA does not entirely preempt HIMIA. View "St. Louis Effort For AIDS v. Huff" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that two groups of defendants, (1) Premera, Premera Blue Cross, and Life Wise Health Plan of Washington (collectively Premera) and (2) the Washington Alliance for Healthcare Insurance Trust and its trustee, F. Bentley Lovejoy (collectively WAHIT), colluded and made false and misleading representations to the plaintiffs that induced the plaintiffs to purchase health insurance policies under false pretenses. Plaintiff-policyholders claimed that Premera and WAHIT violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The plaintiffs requested only two specific forms of damages: (1) for the "unfair business practices and excessive overcharges for premiums," the plaintiffs requested "the sum of the excess premiums paid to the defendants;" and (2) "[i]f the surplus is excessive and unreasonable," the plaintiffs asserted that "the amount of the excess surplus should be refunded to the subscribers who have paid the high premiums causing the excess." On Premera and WAHIT's motion, the trial court dismissed the Policyholders' suit in its entirety based on the filed rate, primary jurisdiction, and exhaustion of remedies doctrines. Specifically, the trial court dismissed all claims of class B (small group) and class C (individuals) pursuant to CR 12(b )( 6) and dismissed all claims of class A (large group) on summary judgment under CR 56. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in relation to certain of the Policyholders' CPA claims. Because awarding the specific damages requested by the plaintiffs would require a court to inappropriately substitute its judgment for that of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. View "McCarthy Fin., Inc. v. Premera" on Justia Law

Wellmark, Inc., an Iowa-based health insurer that belongs to the national Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) network, contracted with health care providers in Iowa to provide services at certain reimbursement rates. Wellmark agreed to make those rates available both to self-insured Iowa plans that it administers and to out-of-state BCBS affiliates when those entities provide coverage for services provided in Iowa. Plaintiffs, a number of Iowa chiropractors, sued Wellmark, claiming that Wellmark had abused monopoly power in violation of the Iowa Competition Law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of some of the chiropractors’ antitrust claims and remanded on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. On remand, Plaintiffs stipulated that their remaining antitrust claims regarding the agreements between Wellmark and both the self-insuring employers and the out-of-state BCBS affiliates were being asserted on a per se theory. The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ per se theories and entered summary judgment for Wellmark. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Wellmark’s arrangements with the self-insured employers and out-of-state BCBS licensees did not amount to per se violations of Iowa antitrust law. View "Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc." on Justia Law