Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-149_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

COVENTRY HEALTH CARE OF MO., INC. v. NEVILS 

Opinion of the Court 

federal  law”  in  an  area  with  a  “long  history  of  federal
involvement.”    Bell,  823  F. 3d,  at  1202.    Strong  and  “dis-
tinctly federal interests are involved,” McVeigh, 547 U. S., 
at  696,  in  uniform  administration  of  the  program,  free
from state interference, particularly in regard to coverage,
benefits,  and  payments.    The  Federal  Government,  more- 
over,  has  a  significant  financial  stake.    OPM  estimates 
that, in 2014 alone, FEHBA “carriers were reimbursed by 
approximately $126 million in subrogation recoveries.”  80 
Fed.  Reg.  29203.    Such  “recoveries  translate  to  premium
cost  savings  for  the  federal  government  and  [FEHBA]
enrollees.”  Ibid. 

B 

Invoking  our  suggestion  in  McVeigh  that  §8902(m)(1) 
has  two  “plausible”  interpretations,  547  U. S.,  at  698,
Nevils  nonetheless  urges  us  to  apply  a  presumption
against  preemption  because  §8902(m)(1)  does  not  clearly 
cover  contractual  terms  pertaining  to  subrogation  and
reimbursement.  This  argument  is  blind  to  McVeigh’s 
context.
  In McVeigh, we considered the discrete question whether 
28  U. S. C.  §1331  gives  federal  courts  subject-matter 
jurisdiction over FEHBA reimbursement actions.  See 547 
U. S.,  at  683.  Our  principal  holding  was  that  §1331  did 
not confer federal jurisdiction.  Ibid.; see Bell, 823 F. 3d, at 
1205. 
  The carrier in McVeigh, as part of its argument in favor 
of  federal  jurisdiction,  asserted  that  §8902(m)(1)  itself
conferred  federal  jurisdiction.    See  547  U. S.,  at  697.  In 
responding  to  that  assertion,  we  summarized  competing
interpretations  of  §8902(m)(1)  advanced  in  briefing,  read-
ings that map closely onto the parties’ positions here.  See 
ibid.  (carrier  and  United  States  as  amicus  curiae  urged 
interpretation  similar  to  Coventry’s;  an  amicus  brief  in 
support  of  beneficiary  offered  interpretation  similar  to