DFS Fines Insurers for Granting Religious Exemptions to Non-Religious Employers
A handful of insurance companies will now pay a collective fine of $509,000 after allowing the exemption for more than 30 entities that were not religious in nature, including a wood floor refinisher, a chimney cleaning service, a tax consultant and others.
May 03, 2019 at 03:52 PM
4 minute read
Some employers in New York have been granted religious exemptions to the state's mandate on providing contraceptive coverage by insurance companies, despite not qualifying for that status, the state Department of Financial Services said Friday.
A handful of insurance companies will now pay a collective fine of $509,000 after allowing the exemption for more than 30 entities that were not religious in nature, including a wood floor refinisher, a chimney-cleaning service, a tax consultant and others.
The agency also issued a guidance Friday reminding insurers that final rules issued by a handful of federal agencies do not preempt the state's insurance law, which requires coverage for contraception in most cases. Acting DFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell said the agency will continue to monitor companies to ensure they're complying with the statute.
“New York's health insurers are on notice that DFS will take all actions necessary to protect healthcare consumers from insurers that fail to adhere to New York State's statutory and regulatory requirements, including for contraceptive coverage,” Lacewell said. “Today's guidance also serves as a strong reminder to New York-regulated insurers that recent federal rules regarding exemptions on the basis of religious beliefs do not preempt robust consumer protections provided by state law.”
An investigation by the agency found that 10 health insurance companies, including Aetna Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, improperly granted religious employer exemption requests to more than 30 entities that did not meet the requirements of the label. Oxford, according to DFS, granted the most exemptions to entities that were not religious employers.
A spokeswoman for Oxford, which is operated by UnitedHealthcare Inc., said the approvals were unintentional and that they would work with the state to ensure future compliance.
“We regret that we made this unintentional error that impacted some of our members and are working with the state to ensure compliance with religious employer exemption guidance going forward,” the spokeswoman said.
Representatives for Aetna did not immediately comment on the claims. The companies, along with the other alleged violators, signed consent orders with DFS to resolve the matter.
The insurers agreed to contact all members of insurance plans who should have received notice of the rider coverage and to pay restitution for the violations. Each entity was ordered to pay a different amount based on the extent of the claims against them.
They were also ordered to reimburse members who were denied coverage and therefore had to pay out of pocket for contraception. Going forward, they'll have to create a new review process for assessing future religious exemption requests to make sure they're not granting one to an employer that does not meet the definition under state law.
Companies are not allowed to self-certify themselves as eligible for a religious exemption, the agency said. In order to qualify, the business has to be a nonprofit that serves and employees people sharing its religious values with the purpose of impressing those ideas. In other words, they have to be a strictly religious organization.
A handful of federal agencies, last year, issued final rules that provided an exemption from the contraceptive coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. That does not trounce the state's law mandating insurers to provide such coverage, the agency said Friday.
The other insurers accused of improperly granting religious exemptions included Crystal Run Health Plan LLC, Crystal Run Health Insurance Company Inc., Capital District Physicians' Health Plan Universal Benefits, HealthNow New York Inc., Independent Health Association Inc. and Independent Health Benefits Corp.
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 AllLisa Zornberg, Former Adams Chief Counsel, Moves to Morvillo Abramowitz
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1High Court Revives Kleinbard's Bit to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
- 2AG Had No Authority to Take Control of Paterson PD, Appellate Division Says
- 3Deviation From Shared Custody Guidelines Requires More Than Common Sense
- 4Florida Pursues New Charge Against Trump Assassination Suspect
- 5Telefónica Maintains State Court Win in $623M Failed Merger Dispute
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