Featured Jobs
Retirement Plan Consultants
|
Distributions and Deconversions Specialist July Business Services
|
Associate Consultant / Retirement Plan Analyst Spectrum Pension Consultants, Inc.
|
Fringe Benefit Group
|
Employee Benefits Account Manager U.S. Retirement & Benefits Partners
|
Director of Retirement Plan Administration & Operations WealthHarbor Capital Group
|
Florida Retirement Consultants
|
The Finway Group
|
GreatBanc Trust
|
Forrestall CPAs, LLC
|
United Benefit Pensions Inc.
|
Qualified Pension Services, Inc. (QPS)
|
Defined Contribution Compliance Consultant Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO)
|
Sr. Multi-Employer Benefits Administrator First Hill Trust Company
|
Retirement Plan Consultant / Account Manager Spectrum Pension Consultants, Inc.
|
Free Newsletters
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
Guest Article
Summary: Consistent with the intent of federal policy on health insurance portability, a state appeals court held that an insurer may not -- by identifying specific conditions that apply to named individuals -- have exclusions that are for periods longer than the 6-, 12- and 18-month exclusionary provisions of a state's portability law. |
(Dec. 11, 2001) A group health insurer may not exclude coverage simply by singling out specific conditions, which is contrary to an Indiana law that parallels language on pre-existing condition exclusions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), a state appeals court ruled. Similarly, the court upheld a state law that parallel's HIPAA's nondiscrimination language that bars limiting coverage based on health status. The case is Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. McCarty, 755 N.E.2d 1104 (Ct. App. Ind., Sept. 17, 2001).
Facts of the Case
In March 1999, the Indiana insurance commissioner notified Golden Rule Insurance Co. that using indefinite exclusionary riders for its group health and accident policies violated the state's insurance law on pre-existing condition exclusions and limitations. The law provides in pertinent part that:
(b) A policy of group accident and sickness insurance may not be issued to a group that has a legal situs in Indiana unless it contains in substance: |
An August 1999 bulletin issued by the commissioner also explained that provision.
Later that month, Golden Rule issued a certificate of insurance to an Indiana resident covered under a group health plan. The certificate was subject to three exclusionary riders -- two were indefinite and one lasted for two years. When Golden Rule refused to provide benefits for a condition excluded by the rider, the Indiana resident filed a complaint with the commissioner.
Golden Rule challenged the commissioner's interpretations of the state law in state court. After a trial court ruled in the commissioner's favor, Golden Rule appealed.
The parties agreed that the pre-existing condition language in the law was unambiguous but differed on what exactly the language meant. The court noted that essentially, the law allows group health policies to have two types of exclusions:
The commissioner noted that this language allows "those who have pre-existing medical conditions to spread the cost of their treatment across the membership of the group for which the policy has been written."
However, Golden Rule contended that adopting the commissioner's view would not increase insurance availability for persons with uninsurable medical conditions. Rather it would "force Golden Rule to decline otherwise insurable applicants in their entirety." In Golden Rule's view, the law should be interpreted to provide that:
However, the appeals court found that the statutory language unambiguously provides that the 6-, 12- and 18-month exclusionary limits only apply to individuals covered under group policies. Therefore, the court found that Golden Rule's interpretation would unacceptably render the statutory language "null and void by failing to give meaning to every word of the statute."
The court also rejected Golden Rule's argument that, based on another section of Indiana insurance law, insurers can exclude or limit the coverage of any person who fails to provide satisfactory evidence of insurability. The court found that general provision must be "harmonized with the specific requirements" of the pre-existing condition law -- and a specific statutory provision controls a general one.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling in the commissioner's favor.
Implications
HIPAA amended ERISA to incorporate language on pre-existing condition exclusions and nondiscrimination, and also changed ERISA's preemption doctrine by allowing states to impose greater restrictions on insurers if a state law does not thwart HIPAA's protections.
The court's ruling is consistent with HIPAA's policy intent. Specifically, the court said that the insurer may not -- by identifying specific conditions that apply to named individuals -- have exclusions that are for periods longer than the 6-, 12- and 18-month exclusionary provisions of the state's HIPAA-like law.
Excerpted from the December 2001 supplement to Employer's Guide to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc., 2001. All rights reserved
BenefitsLink is an independent national employee benefits information provider, not formally affiliated with the firms and companies who kindly provide much of the content and advertisements published on this Web site, including the article shown above.