Insurers May Be Sued If They Accept Obamacare ‘Fix’

Protection: Insurance for insurance.
National Journal
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
Sam Baker
Nov. 21, 2013, 11:47 a.m.

If you like your health care plan, you can keep it — and sue the in­sur­ance com­pany for selling it to you. At least, that’s what some law­yers say.

In its at­tempt to let people keep their can­celed health care policies, the White House has said some plans don’t have to com­ply with cer­tain Obama­care re­quire­ments for an­oth­er year. But those re­quire­ments are still on the books, even if the White House isn’t en­for­cing them.

Cus­tom­ers who buy un­canceled plans can still sue in­sur­ance com­pan­ies for not meet­ing the law’s stand­ards, leg­al ex­perts say.

“If I was an in­sur­ance com­pany, I’d be very wor­ried about this,” said Jonath­an Adler, a law pro­fess­or at Case West­ern Re­serve Uni­versity, adding, “The law is still the law.”

Some states and in­sur­ance car­ri­ers are already skep­tic­al of Obama’s pro­pos­al and un­enthu­si­ast­ic about go­ing through the com­plic­ated pro­cess of un­canceling plans for just a year. The threat of law­suits could be an­oth­er reas­on for in­surers to re­ject the White House’s pro­pos­al.

Here’s how it works: The health care law sets cer­tain stand­ards for all in­di­vidu­al in­sur­ance plans. They have to cov­er a set of 10 “es­sen­tial be­ne­fits,” for ex­ample, and can’t im­pose life­time caps on cov­er­age. In­sur­ance com­pan­ies have been can­celing policies that don’t meet those stand­ards and don’t qual­i­fy for the re­l­at­ively nar­row “grand­fath­er­ing” ex­emp­tion writ­ten in­to the law.

The can­cel­la­tions caused such a polit­ic­al firestorm that the ad­min­is­tra­tion al­lowed in­sur­ance com­pan­ies to un­cancel their plans and sell them for an­oth­er year. In­surers can keep selling policies that don’t com­ply with all of the health care law, and the ad­min­is­tra­tion prom­ised to look the oth­er way.

But the stand­ards plans have to meet are writ­ten in­to the law. So, the ad­min­is­tra­tion might not do any­thing about plans that don’t meet the law’s re­quire­ments, but a con­sumer could still sue his or her in­sur­ance com­pany for selling a product that doesn’t cov­er ser­vices it is leg­ally re­quired to cov­er.

“The fact that the law still says what it says has im­plic­a­tions bey­ond the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s will­ing­ness to en­force it,” Adler said.

Adler is a crit­ic of the Af­ford­able Care Act, but more-sym­path­et­ic leg­al ex­perts share his view on po­ten­tial law­suits. Nich­olas Bagley, a law pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Michigan, said in­surers do ap­pear, at first glance, to be at risk for lit­ig­a­tion.

“I know enough to be able to say with some con­fid­ence that the in­surers have reas­on to be wor­ried,” Bagley said.

This dy­nam­ic could change as the ad­min­is­tra­tion fleshes out its pro­pos­al. But its ini­tial rol­lout didn’t do any­thing to shield in­sur­ance com­pan­ies, Adler said.

“An in­surer who con­tin­ues to provide a policy that does not com­ply with the ACA’s re­quire­ments, and denies pay­ment for an ACA-covered pro­ced­ure in keep­ing with the policy, could be sued by the en­rollee,” said Chris Holt and Laura Collins, policy ana­lysts at the con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­an Ac­tion For­um.

In press ac­counts and in a brief let­ter to state in­sur­ance reg­u­lat­ors, the ad­min­is­tra­tion simply said it doesn’t plan to en­force the health care law’s re­quire­ments for cer­tain policies. It didn’t try to make the case that the law it­self calls for a gradu­al trans­ition to the new re­quire­ments.

That ap­proach might at least give the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de­cision more weight if any­one does sue their in­surer.

“I’m not sure that that would work,” Adler said, “but that would raise dif­fer­ent ques­tions, and there would be a stronger ar­gu­ment there.”

What We're Following See More »
“HOLY HELL TO PAY” IF TRUMP FIRES A.G.
Sen. Graham Supporting Sessions
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Sen. Lindsay Graham said he is '100 percent behind' embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and said there would be 'holy hell to pay' if President Donald Trump fires him. Graham also said that if the president went after special prosecutor Robert Mueller, who’s directing the investigation into possible contacts between Trump’s circle and Russia, that could be the 'beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.'"

Source:
AMiDST COMMS STAFF SHAKEUP
Sanders New WH Press Secretary
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"With little pomp or circumstance, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stepped up to the briefing room podium and got straight to business Friday, reading announcements about "Made in America Week" and a new executive order on defense. Minutes later, newly minted communications director Anthony Scaramucci announced she was formally taking over as White House press secretary. In the aftermath of a chaotic communications staff shakeup at the White House last week, there was little attention paid to a new milestone as Sanders assumed the role."

Source:
JOINT CHIEFS TO KEEP POLICY UNTIL GIVEN DIRECTIONS
No Instructions to Pentagon, No Change in Transgender Policy
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The highest ranking military officer in the country said that the military’s transgender policy won’t actively change until President Trump sends specific directions to the Pentagon. 'There will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance,' Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford wrote in a letter."

Source:
TO INVICTUS GAMES IN CANADA
FLOTUS First Trip Solo
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
SCARAMUCCI INSINUATED PRIEBUS LEAKED INFO
Two of Trump’s Top Advisors Feuding
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A long-simmering feud between two of President Trump’s top advisers reached a boiling point Thursday, as White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci publicly insinuated that chief of staff Reince Priebus is a leaker."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login