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 »
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONSIDERATION
Senate Rejects Effort to Nix SALT Tax Changes
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Democrats on Thursday failed in their first attempt to save the state and local tax deduction, which helps many residents of California and other high-cost states reduce their federal income tax bills. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47 to reject an amendment that would have prevented the Senate from considering any bill that repeals or limits the deduction as part of a planned tax overhaul."

Source:
INTERVIEWED BY COMMITTEE STAFF
Lewandowski Meets with Senate Intelligence Committee
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview with the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday, according to a source familiar with the matter. Lewandowski is the latest senior official in Trump's orbit who has met with the committee as part of its investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign."

Source:
FISHING EXPEDITION
Some Members Seek to Wrap Up Russia Investigations by Year’s End
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"A growing number of key Republicans are sending this message to the leaders of the congressional committees investigating potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russians: Wrap it up soon. In the House and Senate, several Republicans who sit on key committees are starting to grumble that the investigations have spanned the better part of the past nine months, contending that the Democratic push to extend the investigation well into next year could amount to a fishing expedition."

Source:
WROTE LAW THAT WEAKENED OPIOID OVERSIGHT
Trump: Marino Withdrawing Nomination for Drug Czar
2 days ago
THE LATEST
Doesn’t Express Confidence in Marino
Trump to Declare Opioid Emergency Next Week
3 days ago
THE LATEST

After initially promising it in August, "President Trump said Monday that he will declare a national emergency next week to address the opioid epidemic." When asked, he also "declined to express confidence in Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), his nominee for drug czar, in the wake of revelations that the lawmaker helped steer legislation making it harder to act against giant drug companies."

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