NY Financial Regulator May Redistribute Federal Health Subsidy, US Judge Rules
The decision means the insurance company will likely have to pay $65 million to the state in the coming weeks unless the Second Circuit decides differently.
September 25, 2018 at 01:43 PM
6 minute read
A federal judge has denied a demand from a health insurer that would prevent New York state regulators from redistributing federal risk adjustment funds to other insurers while the dismissal of their lawsuit against the state is appealed.
U.S. District Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York said in a decision that a potential $65 million loss to United HealthCare is such a small fraction of its revenues that it may bear the cost of the regulation. He reasoned that without the rule, harm done to the insurance market may be greater.
The decision means the insurance company will likely have to pay that amount to the state in the coming weeks unless the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decides differently.
“The plaintiffs imply that no harm other than mere delay would result,” Koeltl wrote. “These entities—the ones that the 2017 [regulation] is intended to benefit—would continue to be harmed by the [federal risk adjustment program] methodology while not accruing the benefits accorded to them by the 2017 [regulation].”
Koeltl also said United was unlikely to succeed in its appeal of his decision dismissing their lawsuit in August, which is currently being reviewed by the Second Circuit.
Steven Rosenbaum, a partner at Covington & Burling, represented UHC in the case. He declined to comment on Koeltl's decision when reached by phone on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for UHC said in a statement that they are now planning to ask the Second Circuit for an injunction pending a decision on their appeal.
“We respectfully disagree with the court's decision and are appealing,” the spokeswoman said.
The company sued DFS last year for promulgating a regulation that allowed the agency to redistribute a portion of federal funds from the federal risk adjustment program that was implemented in New York by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
A risk adjustment program requires insurers with healthier, and therefore less expensive, enrollees to pay into a common fund that is then distributed to insurers with less healthy, and therefore more expensive, enrollees. It's designed to prevent insurers from seeking out only the healthiest customers.
The federal program, or FRAP, was created as part of the Affordable Care Act. HHS developed the risk adjustment methodology for states under the program, which was finalized in 2016.
DFS issued an emergency regulation that year that allowed the agency to implement a risk adjustment program in New York if the federal program does not address the unique needs of the state's insured. The rule allows the agency to collect up to 30 percent of the funds received through FRAP and redistribute them to other insurers based on a methodology created by the state.
UHC claimed in its lawsuit last year that DFS unlawfully usurped the federal program through its regulation. The insurer argued that the rule amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property in the form of FRAP funds.
Koeltl said in his decision dismissing the lawsuit in August that the HHS rules allow states to modify the federal program if they need to adapt it for their state's insurance market. Since the state is allowed to adjust the funding, according to HHS, it also has the authority to reallocate funds, Koeltl said.
UHC moved to appeal his decision and asked for a preliminary injunction less than two weeks later. It said in its filing that even if DFS wins the case on appeal to the Second Circuit, the worst harm done would be a delay in their payment to the agency.
An injunction would also allow it to save money it may not be able to recoup, United said. The company argued that it would have no legal avenue to recoup the funds taken by the state if it wins on appeal because the Eleventh Amendment prevents a federal court from ordering the state to refund money taken unlawfully after the fact.
Koeltl did not care much for those arguments in his decision. He briefly addressed the argument about the Eleventh Amendment and seemed to suggest the company could explore litigation in state court to recoup the funds, though he said that was not an option he could speak to.
Instead, he addressed the state's argument that United has more than enough money to balance the cost of the lost FRAP funding.
“The defendant points out that a potential $65 million dollar loss is a fraction of Oxford Health Insurance's anticipated 2017 total Federal Risk Adjustment receivable, which will be greater than $200 million,” Koeltl wrote. “And $65 million is but a small fraction of UnitedHealth Group's reported 2016 operating revenues, which totaled more than $184 billion. That potential loss is more than offset by the harm to the small insurance market in New York state if the state program is enjoined.”
UHC will have to pay the estimated $65 million within 10 days of receiving an invoice from the state, or when it receives its FRAP funds in October, whichever happens first. A decision from the Second Circuit granting a preliminary injunction could prevent the payment, but it's unclear if that will come before the funds are sought by the state.
Assistant Attorney General Kelly Munkwitz is the lead attorney on the case for the state.
READ MORE:
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 AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
US Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute readTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Judge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Court Amid Allegations He's Hiding Assets Under Receivership
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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