United States: Connecticut District Court Provides Interpretation Of ACA Provision

Last Updated: November 30 2017
Article by Lin F. Weeks

Lin Weeks is an Associate in Holland & Knight's New York office

Decision Allows Insurers to Circumvent Hospitals in Reimbursement for Emergency Room Visits

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • The ACA does not prevent insurers from declining to directly reimburse out-of-network hospitals for emergency care, and instead adjudicate and administer claims directly with individual patients, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled earlier this month.
  • The decision in Hartford HealthCare Corp. v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., issued by Judge Janet C. Hall, was a matter of first impression, and required the interpretation of several provisions within the Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulating insurers' coverage of "services in an emergency department of a hospital." The interpretation of the ACA arose as one of several disputed issues in case, which culminated in a successful motion to dismiss by the defendant.
  • The court's interpretation changes the stakes for providers entering negotiations with insurers for provider agreements. Barring state laws providing otherwise, providers may now need to accept lower – and potentially "catastrophic" – reimbursement rates, or play bill collector to the same patients who rely on them for treatment.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), insurers may forgo directly reimbursing out-of-network hospitals for emergency care, and instead adjudicate and administer claims directly with individual patients, a district court held earlier this month. The decision, issued by Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, was a matter of first impression, and required the interpretation of several provisions within the ACA regulating insurers' coverage of "services in an emergency department of a hospital."

Background

The interpretation of the ACA arose as one of several disputed issues in Hartford HealthCare Corp. v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., which culminated in a successful motion to dismiss by the defendant.1 Anthem, an insurer, and Hartford HealthCare, a network of hospitals and other health services, had a provider agreement which put health services at Hartford HealthCare in-network for those individuals with plans through Anthem. As the expiration of that provider agreement drew nearer, the parties entered negotiations for an extension. The main sticking point was Anthem's reimbursement rates – that is, the costs Anthem would cover for various treatments by the medical professionals at Hartford HealthCare on patients holding Anthem's plans. Hartford HealthCare's stance, as detailed in its amended complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Anthem, was that Anthem's newly offered reimbursement rates were "unfairly ¬– and catastrophically – low."2 Hartford HealthCare rejected Anthem's offer and became an out-of-network provider for Anthem's members when the existing provider agreement expired.

It can be impossible or unwise for a patient who needs emergency care to go to an in-network provider. Imagine a Connecticut man who loses a finger while in his woodworking shop. He lives closest to a Hartford HealthCare hospital, though that is out-of-network for his employer-provided insurance plan. Nonetheless, he is likely to go, or be taken, to Hartford HealthCare, because he is losing blood and knows that time is of the essence if he wants his finger reattached. Similarly, if that man's wife, covered by the same plan, feels chest pains and shortness of breath late the following Sunday night (she worries these symptoms might precede a heart attack), she will also likely go to Hartford HealthCare, because her primary care provider will almost certainly be closed. Thus, the in-network versus out-of-network provider distinction is especially relevant in the context of emergency care, which is often necessitated by a patient's unexpected medical event or through a lack of other options.3 Accordingly, the ACA provides the following patient protections for patients who receive out-of-network emergency care:

If a group health plan, or a health insurance insurer offering group or individual health insurance issuer, provides or covers any benefits with respect to services in an emergency department of a hospital, the plan or issuer shall cover emergency services . . . in a manner so that, if such services are provided to a patient, beneficiary, or enrollee . . . such services will be provided without imposing any requirement under the plan for prior authorization of services or any limitation on coverage where the provider of services does not have a contractual relationship with the plan for the providing of services that is more restrictive than the requirements or limitations that apply to emergency department services received from providers who do have such a contractual requirement with the plan . . . .4

In the normal course of events under the ACA (according to briefing by Hartford HealthCare), out-of-network emergency departments treat the patient and then send a bill for the cost of those services to that patient's insurance company. The insurance company adjudicates the claim by reimbursing the provider, and provides an explanation for the reimbursement rate. If the provider disagrees with the insurer's reimbursement, the provider appeals the reimbursement and the dispute is settled between the insurer and provider. Any amount billed by the provider but not covered by the insurer is then billed to the patient by the insurer as a copayment amount or coinsurance rate.5

However, when Hartford HealthCare became an out-of-network provider for Anthem, Anthem opted for a different route. Rather than reimburse and adjudicate claims with Hartford HealthCare, Anthem began directly reimbursing patients billed for emergency services by Hartford HealthCare. Patients became responsible for appealing any incorrect reimbursement by Anthem, as well as transferring the money reimbursed by Anthem to the bill they would receive from Hartford HealthCare. Hartford HealthCare sued for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from the new system of reimbursement based in part on a theory that the above-quoted portion of the ACA prohibited such a method. Anthem moved to dismiss on the grounds that it does not.6

Court's Interpretation

The court confined its interpretation of the ACA to the statutory meaning of the phrase "any requirement under the plan for prior authorization of services or any limitation on coverage," and specifically focused on the definition of "limitation on coverage." It also considered the implementing regulation for the statute, which reads in relevant part:

If a group health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, provides any benefits with respect to services in an emergency department of a hospital, the plan or issuer must cover the emergency services consistent with the rules of this paragraph (b) . . . . If the emergency services are provided out of network, without imposing any administrative requirement or limitation on coverage that is more restrictive than the requirements or limitations that apply to emergency services received from in-network providers.7

While Hartford HealthCare argued that the proscription against "any administrative requirement" included the method by which insurers reimburse providers, Anthem asserted that the implementing regulation must be read in the context of the statute (i.e., interpreting the regulation in the manner Hartford HealthCare suggested would impose an additional statutory requirement), and thus the meaning of "administrative requirement" was limited to issues of "coverage" of services. The court sided with Anthem, stating, "[a]n 'administrative requirement' that violates the regulation . . . must still be an administrative requirement on coverage."8

Thus, the decision turned on the court's interpretation of "coverage." While Hartford HealthCare took the stance that limitations on coverage "include any practice that makes it more difficult for a plan member to reimburse a provider for health services," Anthem argued that coverage related to only "what the plan covered" – in other words, the emergency services rendered. Again, the court agreed with Anthem, stating that coverage refers to "the services and benefits included within the plan." Because "the plain meaning definition of 'coverage' in no way includes the method of payment for the services rendered," the court held that the ACA did not restrict Anthem's ability to administer claims with patients rather than Hartford HealthCare, and granted Anthem's motion to dismiss.9

Public Implications

Public policy is implicated by this decision in at least two ways.10 First, restricting the definition of "coverage" to medical service obtained using healthcare devalues existing insurance plans. Presumably, the cost of administering claims with providers is built into the price of health insurance plans. If patients are given the choice between reviewing and appealing their own incorrect reimbursements versus having a hospital handle that work, many will choose (and currently imagine they are paying for) the latter. Previously, that paperwork was part of the plan; under the court's interpretation, it is not. Plans are also devalued from a bargaining-power standpoint. An insurer is more likely, all else equal, to acquiesce to an appeal of an incorrect reimbursement levied by a hospital, which employs billing professionals and is a repeat player with real leverage against it, than it is against a (possibly still sick) member, who has no expertise in claim administration and can't walk away from his plan if he receives it through work.

Second, the court's decision tips the leverage in negotiations for provider agreements toward insurers. Hartford HealthCare details the new administrative burden it has shouldered because of Anthem's new method of reimbursement:

Now, after Hartford HealthCare issues its bill, it is kept completely in the dark about the process. It has no idea when or how Defendant adjudicates the claim, and it has no idea when Defendant is sending its "reimbursement" check to the patient, or how much is being reimbursed. Thus, Hartford HealthCare is put in the unfortunate position of having to follow up on all of these issues with its sick patients (and their families).11

The court's interpretation changes the stakes for providers entering negotiations with insurers for provider agreements.12 Barring state laws providing otherwise, providers may now need to accept lower – and potentially "catastrophic" – reimbursement rates, or play bill collector to the same patients who rely on them for treatment.

Footnotes

1. Hartford HealthCare Corp v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1686 (JCH), 2017 WL 4955505, at *1-2 (D. Conn. Nov. 1, 2017). The court assumed without deciding that the ACA provides a private cause of action, which is an unsettled area of law. Hartford HealthCare had advanced a number of claims under the ACA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and others under Connecticut statutory and contract law. After the court dismissed the ACA-related claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, thus granting Anthem's motion to dismiss the Hartford HealthCare complaint in full and ending the federal case.

2. 3:17-cv-01686-JCH, D.I. 42 at 6.

3. That lack of options could be caused by proximity, time of day or lack of insurance – because an out-of-network provider means, by definition, that the patient in question has insurance, only the first two are relevant to this discussion. As to the third, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, hospital emergency departments accepting Medicare must either examine and treat any patient (insured or not) seeking treatment or provide transfer to an appropriate medical facility that has agreed to accept the transfer and provide treatment. 42 U.S.C.A. §1395dd(b)-(c) (2011).

4. 42 U.S.C. 300gg-19a(b)(1) (2010) (headings omitted) (emphasis added).

5. 3:17-cv-01686-JCH, D.I. 80 at 2.

6. 2017 WL 4955505, at *1-2.

7. 26 C.F.R. §54.9815-2719A(b) (2016) (emphasis added).

8. 2017 WL 4955505, at *8-9.

9. 2017 WL 4955505, at *6-7, 10.

10. Hartford HealthCare identifies a separate public policy concern in its briefing. It writes, "Defendant's actions also needlessly put significant sums of money into the hands of Emergency Department patients who, because of behavioral health, addiction, or substance abuse issues, are likely to misuse the money to place themselves or others in danger." 3:17-cv-01686-JCH, D.I. 80 at 4.

11. 3:17-cv-01686-JCH, D.I. 80 at 2.

12. Hartford HealthCare and Anthem reached a renegotiated provider agreement on Nov. 18, 2017, just over two weeks after the case's dismissal. The terms of the agreement have not yet been publicly reported.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions