Phia Group Russo & Minchoff

Colorado Federal Court Reaffirms Principle That Purchase of Stop Loss Insurance Does Not Affect Self-Insured Status of Plan

cmonfils | December 16, 2011

The Self-Insurer   November 2011 Issue & Volume 37   

From the Bench    By Thomas Croft, Esq.

(Goyen v. Vail Corp., No. 10-cv-02392, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, September 26, 2011).

If it weren’t for the recent brouhaha spawned by the NAIC’s criticisms of stop loss insurance, this case would be somewhat akin to an announcement that no tsunami occurred today—greatly reassuring, but somehow not so newsworthy.

                The plaintiff plan participant sued her employer and its TPA in state court for benefits denied under the Plan, relying on state law causes of action. The defendants removed the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss on the grounds of ERISA pre-emption. The Court converted the motion to a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argued that the Plan’s purchase of what the court termed “stop-gap insurance” rendered it no longer self-funded, such that ERISA’s “deemer clause” did not operate to insulate the Plan from state law based claims under the Supreme Court’s ruling in FMC Corp. v. Holiday, 498 U.S. 52 (1990). (more…)

States Move To Implement Health Reform Provisions

cmonfils | September 19, 2011

www.hr.cch.com

CCH® BENEFITS — 09/01/11
from Spencer’s Benefits Reports: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s State Health Facts, 23 states have established American Health Benefit Exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), have enacted legislation with the intent to establish an Exchange, or have Exchange legislation pending.
Massachusetts and Vermont have established Exchanges, while California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted legislation to establish an Exchange. Hawaii’s Exchange will be a nonprofit, Vermont Exchange will be operated by the state. The rest of the Exchanges will be quasi-governmental.
The Exchange will be a clearinghouse and contract with all qualified health plans in Colorado and Hawaii. In California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont, the Exchange will be an active purchaser contracting with selected health plans and/or negotiating premium prices with health plans. The other states have not yet decided the type of Exchange they will operate.

In Illinois, Indiana (by executive order of the governor), North Dakota, and Virginia, legislation has established the intent to set up an Exchange, while Alabama (by executive order of the governor), Georgia (by executive order of the governor), Mississippi, and Wyoming will study the feasilibility of an Exchange.
The District of Columbia, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have Exchange legislation pending.
For more information, visit http://statehealthfacts.kff.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=962&cat=17.
Rate Review Programs
The federal government will either conduct or assist health insurance rate reviews in nine states, according to the most recent fact sheet from the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), which discusses the rate review requirements included in the ACA.
According to the CCIIO, as of Aug. 15, 2011, state rate review procedures were as follows:
  43 states, the District of Columbia, and one U.S. territory have effective rate review in at least one insurance market;
  41 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have effective review for all insurance markets and issuers.
  In two states (Virginia, Pennsylvania), the federal government will partner with the state to conduct reviews; and
  The federal government will conduct reviews in seven states (Wyoming, Montana, Missouri, Louisiana, Idaho, Arizona, and Alabama) and four U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, and Puerto Rico) until those areas are able to strengthen their review processes and authorities.
Starting Sept. 1, 2011, insurers seeking rate increases of 10% or more for non-grandfathered plans in the individual and small group markets are required to publicly disclose the proposed increases and the justification for them.
For more information, visit http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/factsheets/rate_review_fact_sheet.html.

State Health Care Reform Update

cmonfils | April 8, 2011

www.hr.cch.com      CCH® BENEFITS — 04/04/11

from Spencer’s Benefits Reports: For the last few years, states have been leading the way toward more comprehensive health care coverage to ensure that more people have or can obtain health insurance. With the passage of federal health care reform, states will have increasing responsibilities in regard to employer-provided health insurance benefits. Spencer’s Benefits Reports continues to provide regular updates about state health care reform. (more…)

Colorado: PPACA

Adam V. Russo | June 28, 2010

Colorado. Gov. Bill Ritter recently signed eight health care bills into law. The bills included one to mandate that individual and small group health insurance policies cover contraception and pregnancy. Other bills included the establishment of a reward system for Coloradans who report Medicaid fraud, and the establishment of an advisory committee to make recommendations to start an all-payer claims database. For more information, visit http://www.colorado.gov/GOVERNOR.

Colorado Anti-Subrogation Law Update

Adam V. Russo | June 17, 2010

As you may have heard, a law was just passed in Colorado which devastates subrogation and reimbursement efforts in that State, under State law. This only applies to fully funded insurance carriers, and self-funded benefit plans which obey State law, such as governmental entities and houses of worship.

Not only does C.R.S. § 10-1-135, which will become effective on August 11, 2010, institute a statutory made-whole rule; it also creates a common fund doctrine as well. (more…)

Colorado HB 1168/ Amended & Passed by Judiciary Committee

Adam V. Russo | March 3, 2010

President-Elect Kenneth Levine and Amicus Committee Chair Daran Kiefer spent Monday February 22nd in Colorado with several NASP members and industry lobbyists testifying in opposition to House bill 1168. During the eight hours at the Capital, the parties supporting this bill agreed to several amendments. First, the bill was amended to eliminate property, workers’ compensation and auto subrogation from its reach. As for health subrogation, the proposed amendments require the injured party to provide information about the settlement and available limits. The amended bill calls for a rebuttable presumption of “full compensation” when insurance limits are not received. The amended bill also provides that a party’s full compensation value is equal to any jury award. The health subrogation industry will be impacted if this bill passes and becomes law in Colorado. The House Judiciary Committee approved the measure 10-0 with one abstention.

Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act

Adam V. Russo | February 9, 2010

By Mark Hillman

If there’s one thing personal injury lawyers are especially good at, it’s exploiting the misfortunes of their clients while devising new ways to line their own pockets.

Colorado House Bill 1168 is this year’s prime example. While claiming to help injured parties receive full compensation for damages caused by the fault of someone else, what it really does is guarantee that the injured person, in order to be fully compensated, must hire a lawyer. (more…)

Colorado: House Bill 10-1168 Threatens Healthcare Subrogation and Limits All Subrogation – No Direct Actions by Carriers

Adam V. Russo | February 4, 2010

Subrogation rights are again in danger in Colorado with the introduction of H.B. 10-1168. This bill essentially undoes healthcare subrogation while codifying the “made whole” and “common fund” doctrines into law. The proposed bill will certainly have a devastating effect on healthcare, workers compensation and UM insurance subrogation, but other auto and property subrogation rights will also be greatly impacted whenever there is a personal injury suffered in the same loss. The most dramatic aspect of the proposed bill is that carriers cannot bring direct subrogation actions in such instances. (more…)

Why Medical Malpractice Caps Should Be Raised In Colorado

Adam V. Russo | April 15, 2009

by Glorianna Scott, Denver Legal News Examniner, www.examiner.com

Colorado State Representative Christine Scanlan is expected to sponsor a bill to increase statutory caps on medical malpractice lawsuits. A similar bill, sponsored by Representative Terrance Carroll, failed last year. With only five weeks left in this session, Scanlan’s bill may be difficult to pass, but here’s why it should pass anyway: (more…)

New Subro Laws Among Auto Policies

Adam V. Russo | June 11, 2008

Colorado:

June 5, 2008, Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter approved Senate Bill 11, abolishing subrogation for all medical payment coverage under auto insurance policies to be in effect of January 1, 2009.  The new Colorado law will be in effect as of January 1, 2009. (more…)