In an important win for healthcare providers, on July 17, 2020, the Third Circuit determined in a published opinion that an out-of-network provider’s direct claims against an insurer for breach of contract and promissory estoppel are not pre-empted by ERISA. In Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.[1] In an issue of first impression, the Third Circuit addressed the question of what remedies are available to an out-of-network provider when an insurer initially agrees to pay for the provision of out-of-network services, and then breaches that agreement.
This case arose because two patients—identified as J.L. and D.W.—required medical procedures that were not available in-network through Aetna. J.L. needed bilateral breast reconstruction surgery following a double mastectomy and D.W. required “facial reanimation surgery,” which the Third Circuit describes as “a niche procedure performed by only a handful of surgeons in the United States.” Neither J.L. nor DW had out-of-network coverage for these procedures. D.W.’s plan also contained an “anti-assignment” clause, which would have prevented D.W. from assigning his or her rights under the plan to the Plastic Surgery Center, P.A.
Federal lawmakers are debating legislation to address surprise medical bills that, if passed in its current form, would significantly impact how hospitals, physicians and insurers negotiate payment for the provision of certain out-of-network services. A bipartisan coalition led by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, and Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) aims to present to the President for signature a bill to curb surprise billing practices by the end of the year.
Instances of surprise medical ...
On December 6, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a proposed rule on Form M-1 filing requirements, a proposed rule on DOL ex parte cease and desist orders, a notice of proposed form revision to Form M-1 and a notice of proposed form revision to Form 5500 implementing new requirements for multiple employer welfare arrangements (“MEWAs”) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) (referred to as the “Proposed Rules”). PPACA prohibits false statements or representations of fact about a MEWA’s financial condition ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- At Long Last, DEA’s Remote Prescribing Rules 2.0 Are (Really) Here! (Pending Further Consideration by the Incoming Administration . . .)
- Massachusetts District Court Applies “But-For Causation” Standard, Dismisses AKS-Based FCA Case After Evaluating Facts and Circumstances of Independent Contractor Arrangements
- DOJ’s False Claims Act Recoveries Top $2.9 Billion in FY 2024, but Health Care Numbers Dip—What Could FY 2025 Hold for Health Care Enforcement?
- Recent Developments in Health Care Cybersecurity and Oversight: 2024 Wrap Up and 2025 Outlook
- Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey Signs into Law a Sweeping Health Care Market Oversight Bill