NY Risk Adjustment Rule Paused as UnitedHealthcare Appeals Dismissal of Challenge
The Second Circuit granted a motion for a preliminary injunction from UnitedHealthcare this week while the insurer appeals a decision from U.S. District Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York that dismissed its lawsuit against the state in August.
November 21, 2018 at 11:14 AM
5 minute read
A federal appellate court has paused a state regulation promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services that allows the agency to collect funds from health insurance companies and redistribute the money to insurers who may be negatively impacted by a federal risk adjustment program.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a motion for a preliminary injunction from UnitedHealthcare this week while the insurer appeals a decision from U.S. District Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York that dismissed its lawsuit against the state in August.
The panel also put UHC's appeal on the fast track, asking that the Minnesota-based health insurer submit briefs sometime over the next two to three weeks. The state will then have 10 days to file its reply briefs with the Second Circuit, with an appeal scheduled immediately after.
UHC said in a statement on the decision that the insurer is looking forward to having its appeal of the district court's decision heard in the coming months.
“We are pleased with the court's ruling and look forward to pursuing the merits of our challenge to New York's unlawful regulation,” UHC said in the statement.
The lawsuit was over a regulation promulgated by DFS more than two years ago that allows the agency to collect funding from insurers that receive money from the federal risk adjustment program created under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
A risk adjustment program is designed to ensure that health insurance companies do not only seek out the healthiest, and therefore least expensive, enrollees. The program requires insurers with a larger share of healthier enrollees to pay into a common fund that is then distributed to insurers with higher claims costs from less healthy enrollees.
The regulation promulgated by DFS in 2016 allows the agency to determine whether the federal risk adjustment program will have an adverse effect on small group insurers in New York. If the agency makes that determination, the regulation requires insurers that received money from the federal program to pay into a fund managed by DFS. The agency then distributes that money to other insurers that are expected to be negatively impacted by the federal program.
United argued in its lawsuit against the regulation that DFS lacked the authority to promulgate such a rule because the federal program would, in theory, supersede it. The insurer argued that DFS was illegally attempting to seize its funds in a way that was not allowed by statute.
Koeltl disagreed in his decision dismissing the lawsuit in August, pointing to a provision of the federal risk adjustment program that allowed states to use their own authorities to adjust for unintended consequences of the payments. That's what DFS did when it created the regulation, he argued.
UHC is set to ask the Second Circuit to review the decision by Koeltl, who said the insurer failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. UHC is expected to argue that relief could be granted by the court if the state's regulation is determined to be unconstitutional.
That would save UHC from having to pay an estimated $65 million into the fund managed by DFS sometime in the near future. That's less than what the insurer is expected to receive in federal risk adjust payments, which is estimated to be more than $200 million.
UHC won't have to worry about that payment for at least another month while it prepares its briefs for the Second Circuit and waits for a response from the state. Second Circuit Judges John Walker Jr., Pierre Leval and Christopher Droney were on the panel that granted the injunction.
It's the second time the insurance company has asked for the regulation to be paused while it appeals Koeltl's decision. It initially asked Koeltl in September for a stay, which he denied. He said at the time that stopping the regulation could do more harm to small group insurers than UHC, which he argued had more than enough resources to foot the bill.
“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 at the time. “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.”
Neal Katyal, a partner at Hogan Lovells, and Steven Rosenbaum, a partner at Covington & Burling, are representing UHC on the appeal. Both are based in Washington, D.C. A spokesman from DFS declined to comment on the injunction.
READ MORE:
NY Financial Regulator May Redistribute Federal Health Subsidy, US Judge Rules
Lawsuit Dismissed Against DFS From UnitedHealthCare Over Risk Adjustment Payments
NY Financial Regulator Tightens Reins on Life Insurance Sales Practices
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
© 2025 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 AllHealth Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
Big Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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