Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131115121/U-S-District-Court-Audrey-G-Fleissig-U-S-District-Judge
Timestamp: 2014-04-17 00:52:38
Document Index: 384325744

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 376', '§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 1132', '§ 4980', '§ 4980', '§ 147', '§ 147', '§ 18041', '§ 300', '§ 5000']

U.S. District Court - Audrey G. Fleissig, U.S. District Judge UploadLog inSign upBrowseBooksBiography & MemoirBusiness & EconomicsCookingFantasyFiction & LiteratureHistoryHobbies, Crafts, & HomeMysteryRomanceSocial ScienceTravelYoung Adult & Children'sOther ContentBrochuresCourt FilingsCreative WritingLegal formsInstruction manualsMapsGraphic ArtPresentationsRecipes/MenusSchool Work
P. 1U.S. District Court - Audrey G. Fleissig, U.S. District Judge U.S. District Court - Audrey G. Fleissig, U.S. District Judge Ratings: (0)|Views: 410|Likes: 0Published by samtlevinAUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEAUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEMore info:Published by: samtlevin on Mar 18, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/131115121/U-S-District-Court-Audrey-G-Fleissig-U-S-District-Judge03/18/2013pdftextoriginal UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURIEASTERN DIVISIONMISSOURI INSURANCE COALITION, )HEALTH ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE )COMPANY, and HMO MISSOURI, INC., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) No. 4:12CV02354 AGF)JOHN M. HUFF, in his capacity as Director )of the Missouri Department of Insurance, )Financial Institutions, and Professional )Registration, ))Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Missouri Insurance Coalition (“MIC”), Health Alliance Life InsuranceCo. (“Health Alliance”), and HMO Missouri, Inc., seek a declaration that certain provisions of the recently-enacted Missouri Senate Bill 749, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat.§ 376.1199, are void under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because the state law is in direct conflict with the “contraceptive mandate” of the federalPatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”), 42 U.S.C.§ 300gg-13, and its implementing regulations. Upon review of the record, including thetwo amicus curiae briefs filed with the Court, and the parties’ oral arguments, the Courtwill grant Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment.
Plaintiff MIC is a nonprofit consumer education organization representing and promoting the interests of the insurance industry in Missouri. The other two Plaintiffs arehealth insurers and members of MIC. Defendant John Huff is the Director of theMissouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions, and Professional Registration(“DOI”).
The Affordable Care Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:[A] group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum providecoverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for . . . with respect to women, such additional preventive care andscreenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) for purposes of this paragraph.42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). HRSA guidelines, in turn, require coverage, without costsharing, for, among other things, “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approvedcontraceptive methods . . . for all women with reproductive capacity.” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725(Feb. 15, 2012).This “contraceptive mandate” is backed by financial penalties: employers who donot comply face enforcement actions, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a); a penalty of $100 per day per employee, 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(a)-(b); and an annual tax surcharge of $2,000 per employee.
Id . § 4980H(a). Excluded from the mandate are certain “grandfathered”health plans, 45 C.F.R. § 147.140(c)(1) (2010), and exempted are “religious employers”
3as defined at 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(B) (2011). The regulatory guidelines includewhat has been referred to as a “temporary enforcement safe harbor” for plans that do notqualify for the “religious employer” exemption but are sponsored by certain non-profitorganizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage. 77 Fed. Reg. 8725,8726-8728 (Feb. 15, 2012). These organizations are exempt from application of themandate until August 1, 2013, by which time it is expected that new regulations broadening the definition of “religious employer” will be finalized.The Affordable Care Act has its own pre-emption provision that provides asfollows: “Nothing in this title [Title I of the Act, which includes the preventive servicesrequirement] shall be construed to preempt any State law that does not prevent theapplication of the provisions of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 18041(d). The federal law further provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede any provision of State law whichestablishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement . . . except tothe extent that such standard or requirement prevents the application of a requirement of this part.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-23(a)(1).Under the Affordable Care Act, individuals are exempt from the generalrequirement to obtain health insurance if they are members of a “recognized religioussect or division” that conscientiously objects to acceptance of public or private insurancefunds or are members of a “health care sharing ministry.” 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2).Approximately three months before this action was filed, and again during the pendency of the action, the Eighth Circuit enjoined the enforcement of the federal