Judge vacates CMS rule forcing ACA insurers to bill separately for abortions

A federal judge has vacated a 2019 rule that would force Affordable Care Act insurers to bill separately for abortion. (Pixabay)

A federal judge in Maryland has vacated the Trump administration's 2019 rule that would require Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace insurers to bill separately for abortions.

Judge Catherine Blake for the District Court for the District of Maryland ruled Friday that the restrictions were "arbitrary and capricious" and violates the ACA. The case was brought by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under the ruling, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be enjoined from enforcing the provisions.

Featured Webinar

Reducing barriers to patient care: A cross-industry collaboration

Optum will bring together cross-industry experts to share a case study detailing how an employer, provider, payer and pharmaceutical company worked together to address migraines, a hard-to-diagnose condition. Learn how this team started with a model to risk stratify, predict undiagnosed, misdiagnosed and mismanaged members and how those analytics were used to enrich engagement for treatment and diagnosis optimization.

HHS' stated goal in the rule was to ensure that federal funds were not being used to pay for abortion coverage. But Blake argued that the agency didn't prove that there was a need for additional oversight on this.

"HHS provides no evidence that issuers are not appropriately segregating funds in accordance with the statute and does not rely on compliance issues as a justification for the rule," Blake wrote in the opinion.

RELATED: Judge rules in favor of AMA, protects physicians' First Amendment rights

When it released the rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that health insurers in 18 states offer qualified health plans that include abortion services.

In addition, due to the pandemic, CMS delayed the implementation of the rule from June to August. But Blake also said that it didn't prove a timeline accelerated to that degree was necessary.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association argued, for example, that it would take two years for health plans to comply with the separate billing.

"Accordingly, because HHS failed to consider and adequately address specific, contrary evidence from regulated stakeholders, the implementation deadline is arbitrary and capricious," Blake wrote.

A second case challenging the rule was filed by several Democratic state attorneys general in California court.

Suggested Articles

A New Jersey medical office has filed suit against Cigna, alleging that the insurer failed to pay for diagnostic testing and treatment for COVID-19.

CMS issued new guidance Friday to help states implement the new interoperability policies in Medicaid and CHIP programs.

GoodRx has released its latest list of the most expensive drugs in America, with orphan drugs and therapies for rare conditions topping the ranking.