Insurers May Be Sued If They Accept Obamacare ‘Fix’

Protection: Insurance for insurance.
National Journal
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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×