Mississippi AG asks court to dismiss lawsuit over allegedly unconstitutional ambulance rates
Mississippi AG asks court to dismiss lawsuit over allegedly unconstitutional ambulance rates | Insurance Business America
Insurance News
Mississippi AG asks court to dismiss lawsuit over allegedly unconstitutional ambulance rates
Suit argues that the law is overly vague and should be invalidated
Insurance News
By
Kenneth Araullo
The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office has requested the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the state’s new laws on ambulance service coverage and reimbursement rates.
The suit, filed by the Mississippi Association of Health Plans Inc (MAHP), claims that the Mississippi Triage, Treat and Transport to Alternative Destination Act is unconstitutional.
The act allows ambulance service providers to charge for treating patients on-site and sets minimum reimbursement rates, a report from AM Best said.
MAHP argues that these provisions violate the US Constitution’s contract clauses by disrupting existing agreements between policyholders and insurers. The suit also alleges that the law is overly vague and should be invalidated under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
In response, the attorney general’s office argues that MAHP lacks standing and that the lawsuit is speculative and does not sufficiently demonstrate violations of the contract clause or the 14th Amendment.
The office contends that Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, who was named in the suit, is protected from such legal actions as state officials are generally immune unless the state consents or Congress removes that immunity.
To determine if Chaney can be sued in his official capacity, the court must consider whether he has a specific duty to enforce the challenged law, has shown willingness to do so, and whether he compels compliance with the law. The attorney general’s office argues that MAHP’s lawsuit fails to meet these criteria.
The motion to dismiss asserts that Chaney’s general responsibility to enforce state insurance laws does not constitute a specific duty to enforce the ambulance service coverage or reimbursement provisions.
The office also cites recent federal court rulings indicating that a general duty is not sufficient. Furthermore, it argues that Chaney has not taken any action to enforce the contested parts of the law and is not compelling anyone to comply with it.
The state’s lawyers note that while the new law does not explicitly grant a private right to sue, it also does not prohibit it. Therefore, if insurers refuse to cover ambulance costs or reimburse out-of-network providers, civil suits can be filed by policyholders or ambulance services, without involving Chaney.
Additionally, the attorney general’s office argues that MAHP has not demonstrated how the reimbursement mandate would harm its members’ contracts or the public good.
What are your thoughts on this story? Please feel free to share your comments below.
Related Stories
Keep up with the latest news and events
Join our mailing list, it’s free!
