Blue Cross Hosp. Service, Inc. of Missouri v. Frappier, 65881
| Citation | 698 S.W.2d 326 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65881,65881 |
| Parties | BLUE CROSS HOSPITAL SERVICE, INC. OF MISSOURI, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. J.H. FRAPPIER, Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, et al., Defendants-Respondents, The Missouri Psychological Association, a Missouri not-for-profit corp., Intervenor-Defendant/Respondent, Missouri Pharmaceutical Association, et al., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Robert F. Schafly, Max O. Bagby, Michael A. Dallmeyer, Lewis R. Mills, J. Jackson Sisle, Charles G. Siebert, Jefferson City, for plaintiffs-respondents/cross-appellants.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Melodie A. Powell, Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Daniel P. Card, II, St. Louis, Duane Benton, Harvey M. Tettlebaum, Jefferson City, for defendants-respondents.
Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., David W. Ogden, Margaret Farrell Ewing, Washington, D.C., Thomas H. Rost, Jefferson City, amici curiae.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION FOLLOWING REMAND
Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc. of Missouri, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, and Missouri Medical Service, health service corporations, prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from our decision of December 18, 1984, 681 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. banc 1984). That Court vacated, 472 U.S. 1014, 105 S.Ct. 3471, 87 L.Ed.2d 608 (1985), our judgment and remanded the case to us "for further consideration in the light of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985)." Following additional briefing and oral argument, we conclude that our judgment was consistent with that holding and the same is readopted as published.
The remand relates only to Part 3 of our opinion, in which we held that our statutory provisions requiring health insurers (1) to allow insureds to select chiropractors for covered services within the scope of their licenses; 1 (2) to provide like coverage for the services of psychologists; 2 and (3) to permit the assignment of the insureds' right to reimbursement for drugs and medicines to pharmacists, whether or not they have contracts with insurance carriers or health service organizations, 3 were within the insurance exemptions of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A) (1982), and therefore were not preempted by the provisions of that act. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (1982).
In Metropolitan Life, Massachusetts required health insurers to provide certain benefits for "mental illness." The Supreme Court characterized provisions of this kind as "mandated benefit" provisions, and held that the Massachusetts requirements regulated the terms of insurance contracts in a manner which Congress, in enacting ERISA, had elected to leave to the states. The Court discussed other kinds of regulations, and gave specific attention to "mandated provider" requirements such as our statutes just mentioned contain relating to psychologists and chiropractors, observing in footnote 9 that a substantial number of states required that health insurance policies cover the services of optometrists. Provisions for assignment of insureds' claims to pharmacists were not discussed in the opinion, but are closely related to mandated provider provisions in that they operate to allow the insured greater freedom in the selection of pharmacists.
The health service organizations argue, however, that the discussion of mandated provider legislation in Metropolitan Life is dictum and that mandated provider statutes do not constitute the regulation of insurance. They argue, (1) that the spreading of risk is the hallmark of insurance, and (2) that mandated provider statutes do not relate to the spreading of risk inasmuch as the health insurers have already assumed the risk that insured members might require treatment which chiropractors or psychologists are licensed to provide, or might require medication. They place strong reliance on Group Life and Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979), which holds that contracts between health insurers and pharmacists do not constitute the "business of insurance" so as to be exempt from antitrust regulation under the McCarran-Ferguson Act even though they affect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New York
......Taylor's employer, Alsthom, Inc., and is "an insurance company and/or health care service corporation which sells insurance policies," (3) ...of Missouri v. Frappier, 698 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.1985) (holding ......
-
Riche v. Director of Revenue
...681 S.W.2d 925, 930 (Mo. banc 1984),vacated and remanded, 472 U.S. 1014, 105 S.Ct. 3471, 87 L.Ed.2d 608(1985),readopted as published, 698 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. banc 1985). Under this analysis, a court will strike down the legislation only if the challenger shows that "the classification rests on ......
-
International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America v. Angoff
...681 S.W.2d 925, 931 (Mo.1984) (not covered), vacated, 472 U.S. 1014, 105 S.Ct. 3471, 87 L.Ed.2d 608, and readopted on remand, 698 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.1985); Angoff v. Kenemore, et al., 887 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (not Thus, what IAEA asserts to be an exclusive federal jurisdiction to de......
-
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City v. Bell
...the mandated-benefit provisions involved in Metropolitan Life and our mandated-provider statutes." Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc. v. Frappier, 698 S.W.2d 326, 327 (Mo.1985) (en banc). See also Insurance Commissioner of State of Maryland v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 296 Md. 334, 46......