PROVIDENCE – Rhode Island is one of three states challenging a federal ruling that R.I. Attorney General Peter F. Neronha says conflicts with state law and wrongfully denies coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment.
Neronha, alongside the Connecticut and Illinois attorney generals, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals seeking to petition a ruling by. the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a full court review and rehearing, his office announced on Monday.
In March, the federal court overturned Wit v. United Behavioral Health (UBH), a 2019 case finding that UBH, the largest managed behavioral health company in the U.S., had wrongfully withheld mental health and addiction treatment coverage from “tens of thousands of subscribers.”
Under Rhode Island, Connecticut and Illinois laws, health insurance companies can only legally limit treatment for substance use disorders under standards that meet American Society for Addiction Medicine Criteria.
The decision to overturn Wit v. UBH was based on the insurer’s “own, more restrictive criteria,” Neronha’s office said, and sets “a dangerous precedent for how treatment can be covered nationwide.”
The federal court’s ruling “ignored our state law that has long ensured adequate coverage for Rhode Islanders seeking critical behavioral health treatment,” Neronha said in a statement. “Today, I am standing with colleagues from Connecticut and Illinois to fight against what is a significant risk to how individuals in our respective state’s will receive that essential care.”
Rhode Island saw a 108% increase in annual overdose fatalities from 2011 to 2020, the announcement notes, from 190 to 397, and Kaiser Family Foundation data shows that 6.9% and 3% of adults in Rhode Island report an alcohol or illicit drug use disorder, respectively.
The state has previously called for reform of United Healthcare’s mental health-related coverage, with the Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner ordering the company to pay a $350,000 fine and $2.85 million contribution towards mental health parity infrastructure and community behavioral health programs, as well as a $100,000 administrative penalty for its actions in Wit v. United Behavioral Health.
(Update: Comment from United Health Care added in 6th and 7th paragraphs; 5th and 8th paragraphs updated to reflect the decision by the federal court to use UBH’s criteria in its decision. )
Jacquelyn Voghel is a PBN staff writer. Contact her at Voghel@PBN.com.
