Category: Health Insurance

Health Plan Must Pay For Child’s Medically Necessary Mental Health Treatment, Says Ninth Circuit

Health insurance coverage for mental health treatment is contentious. Insurers historically resist covering these diganoses. Their treatment can be expensive and protracted. Legislation here in Washington State and federally has tried to push back on this, but the problem of getting insurers to cover mental health treatment remains.

A recent Washington Supreme Court ruling compounded the problem by limiting claimants’ ability to rely on legislation that was intended to improve access to coverage for mental health treatment. There’s still a lot of work to be done legislatively to give people tangible, systemic protections for mental health coverage.

Until that happens, most people faced with their health plan’s denial of critical mental health treatment will have no choice but to go to court. That’s what happened to the family of a nine-year-old child known in court filings as “R.C.” (Court filings typically use initials, rather than full names, in cases involving minor children in order to protect the family’s privacy).

In a May 14, 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld R.C.’s success in a lawsuit against his health insurance plan.

R.C.’s parents sued their health plan after it denied coverage for his residential mental health treatment. R.C. had serious behavioral health problems. He threatened to hurt or kill others. He wielded objects like weapons. It’s easy to imagine that his parents wanted to provide him with effective treatment.

But the health plan claimed residential treatment wasn’t “medically necessary.” The court had two problems with this claim.

First, the court found that the treatment was “medically necessary” under the health plan’s own criteria. This boiled down to the plan’s claim that R.C. wasn’t a danger to himself or others. The court listed examples, including: stabbing his own mouth, threatening to kill other children, describing in detail how he intended to use household objects to murder others, and starting fistfights.

Second, the court found that the health plan failed to tell R.C.’s parents what they had to prove in order for the plan to cover residential treatment. Before the court, the plan claimed that R.C.’s parents failed to prove that outpatient treatment had been tried and failed, but the plan never told R.C.’s parents that this was a requirement when it was handling the claim.

In other words, the plan’s denial was wrong on the merits (R.C.’s treatment really was medically necessary) and procedurally unfair (the plan didn’t give the parents a fair shake at proving the treatment was needed). So the parents won. The health plan will have to pay for R.C.’s treatment. That’s a win, right?

Not exactly. The tail of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling declined to award R.C.’s parents any relief beyond the belated reimbursement for his treatment. The court ruled that R.C. could not force the plan to change its practices to make sure that the erroneous denial of benefits wasn’t repeated with other people with similar health claims.

This underscores the systemic problem. It took R.C.’s parents almost five years to get this ruling. During that time, they presumably had to pay for R.C.’s treatment out of pocket. And they had to hire lawyers and deal with the emotional rollercoaster of litigation. They received no compensation for this. It’s easy to imagine that many people with health insurance claims won’t have that kind of time or resources.

Unfortunately, absent sytemic reform, health insurance plans will remain incentivized to wrongfully deny claims with little reprecussion.

Washington Supreme Court Upholds Narrow Interpretation of Mental Health Parity Laws

We’ve previously blogged about the Mental Health Parity Act. This law forbids insurers from discriminating against mental health and substance addiction by covering treatment for those conditions less favorably than other medical treatment. A 2022 report noted insurers continue to violate this law.

A new Washington Supreme Court ruling restricts individuals’ ability to enforce this law. On December 21, 2023, the court ruled in P.E.L. v. Premera Blue Cross that the plaintiffs could not sue their health insurer for excluding certain mental health treatment.

In that case, two parents sued Premera Blue Cross for failing to cover their child’s mental health and substance abuse treatment. The child’s symptoms were so severe they required inpatient hospitalization. The child spent two months at a “wilderness therapy” program before transitioning to long-term treatment.

Premera denied coverage for the wilderness therapy program. The insurance policy generally covered “residential treatment” for mental health conditions. But it specifically excluded any kind of “wilderness” or similar therapy.

The parents alleged that exclusion violated the Mental Health Parity Act and its Washington State counterpart. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed.

The court acknowledged that mental health parity laws aim to fix a long history of discrimination against people diagnosed with mental health disorders which has manifested in the insurance industry. Insurance policies historically singled out these diagnoses for worse coverage. They charged higher premiums and provided lower benefits for them.

These laws began in 1996 with the federal Mental Health Parity Act and continued through Congress’ enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2016, which included protections for mental health coverage. Washington State also enacted similar legislation in 2005.

The court found that the plaintiffs could not sue for violations of the federal laws. Congress decided not to include a private right of action with that legislation. So the plaintiffs could not pursue violations of those laws by alleging they became part of their insurance policy contracts.

The court also found the parents could not sue for violation of the Washington State version of these laws. Washington State’s mental health parity laws require insurance to cover mental health services equally. That means insurance must provide equal copays, out of pocket limits, deductibles, and similar provisions to mental health diagnoses as they do to other conditions.

In particular, the state law says that insurers cannot impose special exclusions for medically necessary mental health treatment. The parents argued Premera violated that rule when it refused to cover their child’s wilderness therapy without deciding it wasn’t medically necessary.

The problem for the parents is that the state parity law excludes “residential treatment” from these protections. Since “wilderness” therapy is a form of residential treatment, the parity law didn’t apply.

Insurers Still Breaking Mental Health Coverage Rules Says Department of Labor

The 2022 report to Congress from the Department of Labor (DoL) on compliance by group health plans with the federal mental health parity laws identifies numerous instances of continued discrimination in coverage for treatment of mental health diagnoses.

Federal law generally prohibits insurers from discriminating against people who need coverage for treatment of mental health conditions. Basically, health insurers cannot have limitations that are more restrictive of treatment for a mental health condition than for other conditions. These rules have only become more important since the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to mental health issues for many Americans; for instance, the CDC noted a 30% increase of overdose deaths since the pandemic.

In large part for this reason, DoL has made enforcement of the mental health parity rules a priority in recent years. One new enforcement tool is a 2021 rule passed by Congress requiring health plans to provide DoL with a comparative analysis of treatment limitations for mental health conditions to help DoL ensure these practices follow the law.

DoL’s report identified many problems with health plans’ reporting about mental health parity. For instance:

  • Failure to document comparisons of treatment limitations for mental health limitations before implementing those limitations;
  • Lack of evidence or explanation for their assertions; and
  • Failure to identify the specific benefits affected by mental health limitations.

DoL also noted that enforcing these reporting rules had led to the removal of several widespread insurer practices that violated the mental health parity rules.

For example, one major insurer was found to routinely deny certain behavioral health treatment for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. This resulted in denying early intervention that could have lifelong results for autistic children. DoL found over 18,000 insureds affected by this exclusion.

Another example involved the systemic denial of treatment used in combatting the opioid epidemic. New research has found that combining therapy with medication can be more effective for treating opioid addiction than medication alone. DoL found a large health plan excluded coverage for this therapy in violation of the mental health parity rules.

Other treatments DoL’s report identified as being denied on a widespread basis in violation of the law included counseling to treat eating disorders, drug testing to treat addiction, and burdensome pre-certification requirements for mental health benefits.

DoL’s report is a reminder that discrimination on the basis of mental health related disabilities remains a part of the insurance business despite years of federal legislation to the contrary.

Ninth Circuit Confirms ERISA Plans Cannot Assert New Rationales for Denying Benefits After They Get Sued

I’ve previously blogged about cases in which insurers were limited from raising new reasons to deny coverage after the fact. Whether an insurer can do so is a complex question that depends on the facts of the specific case. It also depends on what law applies. A recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms that, if ERISA applies, the rule is clear: ERISA-governed benefit plans cannot raise new reasons for denying benefits after they get sued.

In Beverly Oaks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, doctors at the Beverly Oaks clinic sued Blue Cross & Blue Shield (BCBS) claiming that BCBS should have paid for the treatment of certain patients of the clinic who had health insurance coverage from BCBS under their ERISA plans. The doctors relied on agreements the patients signed promising that the doctors could sue the insurance plan directly to pay their treatment bills. These agreements are known as an “assignment of benefits.’

No one disputed that the ERISA plans at issue banned the patients from signing the “assignment of benefits” forms. The plan documents repeatedly stated that benefits could not be assigned to third parties like the doctors.

But BCBS failed to invoke the assignment ban in response to the doctors’ claims. Instead, BCBS processed the claims on the merits, mostly denying them for reasons unrelated to the assignment of benefits. At the end of the day, BCBS paid the doctors only $130,000 out of $1.4 million in medical bills.

BCBS raised the ban on assigning benefits only after the doctors filed a lawsuit under ERISA seeking to overturn BCBS’ denial of the claims on the merits. BCBS told the federal District Court that the doctors had no right to sue on behalf of their patients because the assignment of benefits agreements were not allowed under the terms of the ERISA plans. The District Court agreed and dismissed the case.

But the Ninth Circuit reversed and allowed the doctors’ suit to proceed. That court emphasized that ERISA requires employee benefit plans (including their agents like BCBS) to state all of the reasons for denying a claim in the first instance. Allowing plan administrators to keep arguments for denying claims in their proverbial “back pockets” until litigation invites abuses and cuts against claimants’ right to respond to the basis for any claim denials:

“ERISA and its implementing regulations are undermined where plan administrators have available sufficient information to assert a basis for denial of benefits, but choose to hold that basis in reserve rather than communicate it to the beneficiary.”

The Court of Appeals also relied on the fact that BCBS representatives repeatedly told the doctors that they could seek reimbursement for medical bills on their patients’ behalf–before the doctors provided treatment–without mentioning the ban on assignments of benefits.

Court Confirms Health Insurers Can’t Sell Discriminatory Insurance Policies

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Washington and other west coast states) is having a busy summer for insurance cases. On the heels of recent decisions regarding attorneys’ fees in ERISA-governed insurance disputes and insurers’ duty to reasonably investigate insurance claims comes the July 14, 2020 ruling in Schmitt v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, holding health insurers cannot design health plans that have a discriminatory impact under the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a “Obamacare”).

For decades before the ACA, it was legal for health insurers to design health plan benefits however they chose, even if those plan designs had a discriminatory impact. As long as the insurer provided the same benefits to everyone, the insurer could decide what benefits to offer and what not to offer. Insureds could not sue their insurer for designing a health plan that had a discriminatory effect.

The Schmitt ruling confirms that the ACA changed that. Part of the ACA’s purpose is to expand so-called “minimum essential coverage” under health insurance policies. There are certain minimum benefits that must be included in most health plans. This includes, for instance, emergency services, maternity care, mental health treatment, and rehabilitative treatment.

Additionally, the ACA specifically provides that insurers cannot design health plans in a discriminatory manner. It states that an insurer may not “design benefits in ways that discriminate against individuals because of their…disability.”

The Schmitt ruling emphasizes that the ACA is different from prior federal laws that had been interpreted not to prohibit discriminatory plan design. Prior to the ACA, no federal law guaranteed any person adequate health care. The ACA, on the other hand, explicitly guarantees the right to minimum health insurance benefits and prohibits designing health plans that deprive people of those minimum benefits on a discriminatory basis.

The court noted the ACA does not require insurers cover all treatment no matter how costly or ineffective. But the court emphasized insurers cannot design health coverage that has a discriminatory impact.

The Schmitt ruling is an important victory for advocates of fair insurance coverage.