O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
It is the intent of the General Assembly to encourage health care cost containment while preserving quality of care by allowing health care insurers to enter into preferred provider arrangements and by establishing minimum standards for preferred provider arrangements and the health benefit plans associated with those arrangements.
History
Code 1981, § 33-30-21, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1483, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Judicial intervention refused. - Appellate court refused to intervene in allegations made by uninsured patients against a non-profit hospital that the uninsured patients were charged more than patients who were covered by insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, as it refused to intervene in a commercial transaction for
which the legislature has already established a policy favoring price-comparison by the patient, whereby judges and juries would be called on to set appropriate prices for hospitals to charge the hospitals’ patients. Cox v. Athens Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 279 Ga. App. 586, 631 S.E.2d 792 (2006).
Notes of Decisions
Cox v. Athens Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 631 S.E.2d 792 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “OCGA§ 33-30-21. At the heart of this case is the notion that those who do not participate in an insurance policy do not benefit from the lower rates *589 hospitals charge insured patients.”
Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Bowden, 820 S.E.2d 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “11 We note that the Georgia Legislature encourages private insurers to negotiate with hospitals to charge lower rates for medical care provided to covered patients, thus implicitly approving of a payment scheme like the one here.”
Ne. Georgia Cancer Care v. Blue Cross, 726 S.E.2d 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “" OCGA § 33-30-21. In other words, the General Assembly expressed its intention that health care insurers be allowed to contract with their "preferred" providers to offer specified covered services, rather than be forced to admit "every" qualified provider, as would be required…”
Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Bowden, 761 S.E.2d 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 33-30-21; 33-30-23. None of the rate-setting agreements that she requests apply to her because she was uninsured.”
The Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Danielle Bowden (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 33-30-21; 33-30-23. None of the rate-setting agreements that she requests apply to her because she was uninsured.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.