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
- New Proposed Federal Legislation Takes Aim at Concerns Regarding Perceived “Looting” of Health Care Systems by Private Equity Investors
- Podcast: The Future of Laboratory Testing Just Got a Little Clearer - FDA's Final Rule on LDTs – Diagnosing Health Care
- How Does the End of Chevron Deference Change the Relationship Between the Health Care Industry, Federal Regulators, and Congress?
- Podcast: Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
- Thoughts: AB 3129 Expands Its Reach