O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-30-25 (2019)

Reasonable limits on number or classes of preferred providers

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to the approval of the Commissioner under such procedures as he may develop, health care insurers may place reasonable limits on the number or classes of preferred providers which satisfy the standards set forth by the health care insurer, provided that there be no discrimination against providers on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital or corporate status, and provided, further, that all health care providers within any defined service area who are licensed and qualified to render the services covered by the preferred provider arrangement and who satisfy the standards set forth by the health care insurer shall be given the opportunity to apply and to become a preferred provider.

History

Code 1981, § 33-30-25, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1483, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Approval of Insurance Commissioner to limit providers. - Applying the ‘‘Any Willing Provider’’ (AWP) statute to a health insurer did not conflict with O.C.G.A. § 33-30-25 because that statute required the approval of the Insurance Commissioner to limit providers in pre-

ferred provider arrangements. Northeast Ga. Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 315 Ga. App. 521, 726 S.E.2d 714 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1322, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 1018 (Ga. 2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1413, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 1033 (Ga. 2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2012 · leading case: Ne. Georgia Cancer Care v. Blue Cross, 726 S.E.2d 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Ne. Georgia Cancer Care v. Blue Cross, 726 S.E.2d 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 100× “Specifically, the appellees argue that OCGA § 33-30-25 reveals that inconsistency.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l Park Med. Ctr., Inc., 413 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2005). “See Ga.Code Ann. §§ 33-30-25(AWP) and 33-21-29(POS); Va.”
— 33-30-25(AWP) — 1 case
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l Park Med. Ctr., Inc., 413 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2005). “See Ga.Code Ann. §§ 33-30-25(AWP) and 33-21-29(POS); Va.”
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.