Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T09:16:41.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medicare: Ninth Circuit Limits Rates Providers Can Charge Medigap Insurers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Ed Caldie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Vencor, Inc. v. National States Insurance Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Medigap insurance provider was only obligated to pay the rates that Medicare would have paid for the same care.

Clarence Rollins purchased a Medigap insurance policy from National States Insurance Company (NSIC) to supplement his Medicare coverage. When Rollins became ill and required care beyond that which Medicare would cover, he received his medical treatment from Vencor Hospital-Phoenix (Vencor). Upon Rollins's death, NSIC paid Vencor $38,760. Vencor claimed that NSIC owed an additional $132,438 because NSIC was not entitled to the lower care rates established by Medicare. NSIC refused to pay Vencor's higher rates. As a result, Vencor sued NSIC for breach of contract.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held, on a motion for summary judgment, that no breach occurred, and that NSIC was obligated to pay only the lower rates established by Mediare. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Spring 2003 , pp. 159 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Vencor, Inc. v. Nat’l States Ins. Co., 303 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Id. at 1028–30.Google Scholar
Vencor v. Nat’l States Ins. Co., No. 97–2350-PHX-ROS, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21461 (D. Ariz. July 7, 1999).Google Scholar
Nat’l States Ins. Co., 303 F.3d at 1039.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1395e(a) (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1395d (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395ss(g)(1), 1395d (2003).Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(p) (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 20–1133(A) (West 2002); Ariz. Admin. Code § R20-6-1103(A) (2002).Google Scholar
See Ariz. Admin. Code § R20-6-1103(A)(7) (2002).Google Scholar
Nat’l States Ins. Co., 303 F.3d at 1029.Google Scholar
Id. at 1031.Google Scholar
Id. (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
Id. at 1031–32.Google Scholar
See Ariz. Admin. Code § R20-6-1103(A)(7) (2002).Google Scholar
Nat’l States Ins. Co., 303 F.3d at 1032.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Vencor, Inc. v. Physicians Mutual Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 1327 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar