Pension & Benefits Daily™ covers all major legislative, regulatory, legal, and industry developments in the area of employee benefits every business day, focusing on actions by Congress,...
UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s way of reimbursing medical providers violates federal employee benefits law, the Labor Department told a federal appeals court ( Louis J. Peterson, D.C. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. , 8th Cir., No. 17-1744, amicus brief filed 9/5/17 ).
The Labor Department opposes a health insurance practice called “cross-plan offsetting,” in which insurers like UnitedHealth reduce payments owed to medical providers for services rendered to specific patients. The reductions are meant to offset overpayments the providers previously received on account of different patients who participate in other plans insured by the same company. This practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the DOL said in a brief filed Sept. 5 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
This case could have big implications for the health insurance industry, because cross-plan offsetting is a common practice that’s driven litigation against insurers like Aetna and several Blue Cross-connected entities. Another lawsuit raising similar claims against UnitedHealth has been put on hold while the parties attempt mediation.
In this case, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled earlier this year that cross-plan offsetting wasn’t authorized by the terms of UnitedHealth’s plans. The judge didn’t address whether the practice is permissible under ERISA, instead allowing UnitedHealth to file an immediate appeal with the Eighth Circuit. The judge called this an “exceptional case,” given UnitedHealth’s status as the country’s largest health insurer. If the offsetting practices are ultimately blocked by the courts, UnitedHealth will have to undertake an “extremely expensive and disruptive process” to unwind this practice, the judge said.
The DOL weighed in on the appeal, saying that in the agency’s view, cross-plan offsetting violates ERISA because it enriches insurers at the expense of plan participants.
“When United refused to pay legitimate claims on behalf of the participants in one plan ("Plan B") in order to recoup overpayments on behalf of different participants in a separate plan ("Plan A"), United burdened the participants in Plan B with the obligation to pay for services that should have been covered by their plan,” the DOL said.
Moreover, this practice frequently puts money in UnitedHealth’s pockets, the DOL said. That’s because all of the alleged overpayments at issue were made to fully insured plans, which are plans where UnitedHealth is the party responsible for paying claims. The majority of recoupments were taken from self-insured plans, which are plans where UnitedHealth administered claims but another party, like an employer, is responsible for payment.
“In other words, every one of the cross-plan offsets at issue in this litigation put money in United’s pocket, and most of that money came out of the pockets of the sponsors of self-insured plans,” the DOL said, quoting the district judge’s opinion.
Because UnitedHealth is acting in its own self-interest, and not for the exclusive benefit of the participants in the self-funded plans it administers, the insurer is breaching its ERISA fiduciary duties, the DOL argued.
The brief was filed by DOL attorneys Nicholas C. Geale, G. William Scott, Thomas Tso, and Susanna Benson.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jacklyn Wille in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jo-el J. Meyer at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the brief is at http://src.bna.com/sio.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)