Why Government Should Not Require Insurance
Insurance is a contract a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from a contingent or unknown event. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) changes the historical basis of insurance and requires insurers and insurance buyers to buy certain coverages whether they want it or not.
In Zubik v. Burwell, — S.Ct. —-, Supreme Court of the United States, 2016 WL 2842449 (May 16, 2016) the United States Supreme Court was asked to apply the Constitution’s first amendment prohibition upon the government to not impinge upon a persons free exercise of its religion by making religious organizations do something contrary to the free exercise of their religion.
Nonprofit religious employers brought actions against Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other government officials, challenging under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) regulations offering accommodation for religious objections to compliance with regulatory mandate to provide employees with health insurance coverage for contraceptives, which regulatory mandate was imposed in furtherance of requirement in the ACA that employers provide insurance coverage for preventive care for women.
Petitioners are primarily nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. Federal regulations require petitioners to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans, unless petitioners submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Petitioners allege that submitting this notice substantially burdens the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.”
Both petitioners and the Government confirmed in their supplemental briefing that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.”
In light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacated the judgments below and remanded to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”
The Court finds the foregoing approach more suitable than addressing the significantly clarified views of the parties in the first instance. Although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this Court’s involvement at this point to resolve them.
The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.
The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court does only what it says it does: “afford[s] an opportunity” for the parties and Courts of Appeals to reconsider the parties’ arguments in light of petitioners’ new articulation of their religious objection and the Government’s clarification about what the existing regulations accomplish, how they might be amended, and what such an amendment would sacrifice. As enlightened by the parties’ new submissions, the Courts of Appeals remain free to reach the same conclusion or a different one on each of the questions presented by these cases.
When a government gets involved in a private contract between intelligent adults and imposes its will on what must be in the contract litigation will invariably ensue and run all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The parties, by indicating in their supplemental briefs an ability to resolve the disputes by compromise, they gave a court with only eight justices, an opportunity to avoid the issue and allowed the parties plaintiff to continue to protect their right to freely exercise their religion and enter into an agreement with the government that will avoid the issue and gut the coercive portions of the ACA. It would have saved a great deal of money and court time if the act allowed people to insure as they desired realizing that octogenarian nuns have no need for contraceptive coverage.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, practiced law in California for more than 49 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer. He now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant and expert witness specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes.
He founded Zalma Insurance Consultants in 2001 and serves as its only consultant.
Check in on Zalma’s Insurance 101 – a Videoblog – that allows your people to learn about insurance in three to four minute increments at http://www.zalma.com/videoblog
Look to National Underwriter Company for the new Zalma Insurance Claims Library, at www.nationalunderwriter.com/ZalmaLibrary The new books are Insurance Law, Mold Claims Coverage Guide, Construction Defects Coverage Guide and Insurance Claims: A Comprehensive Guide
The American Bar Association, Tort & Insurance Practice Section has published Mr. Zalma’s book “The Insurance Fraud Deskbook” available at http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=214624, or 800-285-2221 which is presently available and “Diminution of Value Damages” available at http://shop.americanbar.org/eBus/Store/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=203226972
Mr. Zalma’s new e-books “Getting the Whole Truth,” “Random Thoughts on Insurance – Volume III,” a collection of posts on this blog; “Zalma on California SIU Regulations;” “Zalma on California Claims Regulations – 2013″ explains in detail the reasons for the Regulations and how they are to be enforced; “Rescission of Insurance in California – 2013;” “Zalma on Diminution in Value Damages – 2013; “Zalma on Insurance,” “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose,” “Arson for Profit” and others that are available at www.zalma.com/zalmabooks.htm
Mr. Zalma’s reports on World Risk and Insurance News’ web based television programing, http://wrin.tv or at the bottom of the home page of his website at http://www.zalma.com on Tumbler at https://www.tumblr.com/search/zalma and Twitter at Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.