Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXII Chapter 176A
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176A, § 6 (2026)

Approval of nongroup contracts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 6. Nongroup contracts, except contracts providing supplemental coverage to medicare subject to the provisions of chapter one hundred and seventy-six K, issued and rates charged by nonprofit hospital service corporations to its subscribers for hospital care and reimbursement for other health services shall be subject to the provisions of chapter one hundred and seventy-six M, and any regulations promulgated thereunder.

No such contracts shall be approved if the benefits provided therein are unreasonable in relation to the rate charged, nor if the rates are excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. For the purposes of the review of rates of payment under this section, whether a contract is not excessive shall include considerations of affordability for consumers and purchasers of health insurance products; provided, however, that such review shall adhere to principles of solvency and actuarial soundness.

The commissioner shall require every such corporation to keep its books, records, statistics, accounts and vouchers in such manner that he or his authorized representatives may readily verify its annual statements and ascertain whether the corporation has complied with the law.

At least once in three years, and whenever he determines it to be prudent, he shall personally, or by his deputy or examiner, visit each non-profit hospital service corporation and thoroughly inspect and examine its affairs to ascertain its financial condition, its ability to fulfill its obligations, whether it has complied with the law, and any other facts relating to its business methods and management, and the equity of its dealings with its subscribers.

A report of examination of any corporation made under this section shall as far as material and relevant be admitted in the discretion of the court in any judicial proceedings brought by or in behalf of the commissioner or any subscriber, non-profit hospital service corporation or other person as evidence tending to prove the facts stated in such report, but nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the commissioner to make an examination under this section before bringing such a proceeding.

The commissioner may investigate, in such manner and to such extent as he may deem expedient, any complaint under any subscriber's contract.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1984–1998 · leading case: Massachusetts Ass'n of Older Americans v. Comm'r of Ins., 471 N.E.2d 1281 (Mass. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Massachusetts Ass'n of Older Americans v. Comm'r of Ins., 471 N.E.2d 1281 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 18× “3 On appeal, MAO A contends that the new Medex rates approved by the commissioner are excessive, in violation of G. L. c. 176A, § 6, and G. L. c. 176B, § 4.”
Blue Cross of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Comm'r of Ins., 489 N.E.2d 1249 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 7× “1 See G. L. c. 176A, § 6 (1984 ed.); G. L. c. 176B, § 4 (1984 ed.”
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Comm'r of Ins., 691 N.E.2d 929 (Mass. 1998). “176K, § 7 (d) and (g), is the same as the standard of review contained in G. L. c. 176A, § 6, and G. L. c. 176B, § 4, the statutes that applied to the Medicare supplement rate filings by a hospital or medical service corporation before the enactment of G.”
Blue Cross of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Comm'r of Ins., 392 Mass. 178 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 8× “G. L. c. 176A, § 6. In the spring of 1982, the Commissioner approved an increase in Medex rates, effective June 1, 1982.”
Workers' Comp. Rating & Inspection Bureau v. Comm'r of Ins., 461 N.E.2d 1178 (Mass. 1984). “Accordingly, we must measure the alleged delay here against a less well-defined standard than exists under other statutes. The bureau has presented us with no case indicating that a six-month delay in calling a hearing on proposed rates is excessive.”
Blue Cross of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Comm'r of Ins., 397 Mass. 674 (Mass. 1986). “See G. L. c. 176A, § 6, and c. 176B, § 4 (1984 ed.”
City of Cambridge v. Attorney Gen., 410 Mass. 165 (Mass. 1991). “See G. L. c. 176A, § 6; G. L. c. 176B, § 4; and G.”
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.