"ALIC claims that the Providers may not seek prompt payment penalties under the TPPA because the TPPA 'relates to' ERISA plans, and thus is expressly preempted by Section 514(a).... The only impact on ERISA plans asserted by ALIC is the increased cost it will incur for administering ERISA plans as a result of the imposition of prompt payment penalties, which the Court finds speculative at best.... [T]he parties in this case are not all traditional ERISA entities, nor do the Providers 'stand in the shoes' of ERISA plan beneficiaries.... Furthermore, the Providers are not making demands for payment of benefits under ERISA plans. No coverage determination is implicated.... ERISA does not go so far as to eliminate the ability of parties on the periphery of ERISA plans to contract with one another, nor the right of state legislatures to pass laws that impact those contracts." [Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, No.3:14-cv-347-M (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2015)]