Connecticut Hospitals Sue Anthem Over New Reimbursement Arrangement
After it turned down a three-year contract agreement with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Hartford HealthCare Corporation alleges Anthem retaliated by refusing to pay HHC directly for emergency care. Instead, the new policy calls on patients to get reimbursed and then make arrangements to pay HHC.
October 06, 2017 at 05:24 PM
3 minute read
A group of Connecticut hospitals has sued Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield claiming the insurer is refusing to pay them directly for medically necessary emergency care in retaliation for not signing a new provider agreement.
Anthem told Hartford HealthCare Corp. that it will only pay patients directly. The patients then have to pay the hospital. HHC, which represents six state hospitals, said Anthem changed its payment policy after failing to reach a last-minute agreement on a three-year contract in September. HHC said it rejected Anthem's last contract offer because it contained “unfairly low reimbursement rates.”
The federal lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Connecticut seeks an injunction forcing Anthem to pay HHC instead.
The lawsuit claims Anthem paid HHC directly for emergency care for decades, and that the new policy puts ”an unfair and substantial burden on both the affected patients and Hartford HealthCare.”
The patient, HHC said, “will have the burden of collecting those checks, cashing them, and making arrangements to pay Hartford HealthCare themselves. This process is time-consuming, and fraught with risk of lost checks, mispayments, and other issues.”
The new policy brings ”significant administrative burdens” for the hospitals, according to the lawsuit. That includes waiting to receive the reimbursement from the patients and follow-up efforts tracking down delayed, misplaced, lost and wrongly cashed checks.
HHC said Anthem hasn't explained the change in payment policy, and that the insurer's actions violate state and federal law, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The lawsuit claims the ACA requires Anthem to pay HHC directly for necessary emergency medical services. Connecticut General Statute §38a-477aa(b)(3)(A) requires insurers to pay health care providers directly for emergency services provided out-of-network.
Anthem no longer has a participating provider agreement with HHC, which was forced to become an out-of-network provider, according to the lawsuit.
In addition to the injunction forcing Anthem to pay HHC directly, HHC is seeking a declaration that Anthem's actions violate the ACA and Connecticut law, and attorney fees.
The involved hospitals are Hartford Hospital, The Hospital of Central Connecticut at New Britain General, Bradley Memorial, Midstate Medical Center, The William Backus Hospital and Windham Community Memorial Hospital.
Sarah Yeager, director of communications for the Wallingford-based Anthem, did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
Roy Breitenbach, an attorney with Garfunkel Wild in Stamford, represents HHC. He also did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Awards $48.6 Million to Frontier Airlines in COVID-19 Breach of Contract Suit
With Employment Law in National Spotlight, Contractor Scores in Trade Secrets Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250