SubscribeA recently decided US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case, Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., offers some useful insights on the enforcement by private litigants of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Like other similar cases, the case invites questions about the impact of potential changes under the proposed regulations issued under MHPAEA last year. Despite that the issues at this stage are procedural, the case nevertheless offers some useful insights, which this post explores.
Our previous MHPAEA content is available here.
According to the complaint, the group health plan under which Ryan S. was covered was administered by UnitedHealthcare. The plan covered outpatient, out-of-network mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits at 70% of covered charges and at 100% once the out-of-pocket maximum was met.
Ryan S. completed two different outpatient, out-of-network substance use disorder programs, coverage for which was denied on multiple occasion and for disparate reasons. As the complaint explains, the denials resulted from UnitedHealthcare’s use of an algorithm that assessed patients’ progress and referred cases for additional review. This additional layer of review was not applied to outpatient, out-of-network medical/surgical (M/S) claims. Ryan S. alleges that UnitedHealthcare applied a more stringent review process to benefits claims for outpatient, out-of-network MH/SUD treatment than to otherwise comparable M/S treatment. The complaint states this disparity in applicable review standards violates:
- MHPAEA
- The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary rules
- The failure to follow the terms of the plan as required by ERISA
The Disposition of the Plaintiffs’ Claims
The district court had dismissed all the claims. The Ninth Circuit reversed on MHPAEA and ERISA fiduciary claims but let stand the district court’s dismissal of the claim related to plan terms.
MHPAEA requires that any limitations on “mental health or substance use disorder benefits” in an ERISA plan be “no more restrictive than the predominant treatment limitations applied to substantially all [covered] medical and surgical benefits.” Thus, said the court, to succeed, a plaintiff must show an ERISA plan that offers both M/S and MH/SUD benefits imposed a more restrictive limitation on MH/SUD treatment than limitations on treatment for M/S issues. The court then identified three situations in which such a violation might occur:
- Facial exclusion cases: A plaintiff can allege that a plan contains an exclusion that is discriminatory on its face.
- “As-applied” cases: A plaintiff can allege that a plan contains a facially neutral term that is discriminatorily applied to MH/SUD treatment.
- Internal process cases: A plaintiff can allege that a plan administrator applies an improper internal process that results in the exclusion of an MH/SUD treatment.
In the court’s view, the complaint raises internal process claims. As such, violations cannot be discerned with reference to the plan document. The court therefore saw no reason to disturb the district court’s dismissal of the claim relating to plan terms.
With respect to the MHPAEA and ERISA fiduciary claims, [...]
Continue Reading
read more
