Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 33. INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES · CHAPTER 22. DISABILITY INSURANCE · Part 5. Group Disability Insurance
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 33-22-526 (2026)

Group Health Discrimination Prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 33
  3. CHAPTER 22
  4. Part 5
  5. 33-22-526 Group health discrimination prohibited

TITLE 33. INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES

CHAPTER 22. DISABILITY INSURANCE

Part 5. Group Disability Insurance

Group Health Discrimination Prohibited

33-22-526. Group health discrimination prohibited. (1) (a) A group health plan or a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility, including continued eligibility, of any individual to enroll under the terms of the group health plan based on any of the following health status-related factors of the individual or a dependent of the individual:

(i) health status;

(ii) medical condition, including both physical and mental illnesses;

(iii) claims experience;

(iv) receipt of health care;

(v) medical history;

(vi) genetic information;

(vii) evidence of insurability, including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence; or

(viii) disability.

(b) This subsection does not:

(i) require a group health plan or group health insurance coverage to provide particular benefits other than those provided under the terms of the group health plan or group health insurance coverage; or

(ii) prevent the group health plan or group health insurance coverage from establishing limitations or restrictions on the amount, level, extent, or nature of the benefits or coverage for similarly situated individuals enrolled in the group health plan or group health insurance coverage.

(c) For purposes of subsection (1)(a), rules for eligibility to enroll under a group health plan include rules defining an applicable waiting period for the enrollment.

(2) (a) A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan may not require an individual, as a condition of enrollment or continued enrollment under the group health plan, to pay a premium or contribution that is greater than the premium or contribution for a similarly situated individual enrolled in the group health plan on the basis of any health status-related factor of the individual or of an individual enrolled under the plan as a dependent of the individual.

(b) This subsection (2) does not:

(i) restrict the amount that an employer may be charged for coverage under a group health plan; or

(ii) prevent a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage from establishing premium discounts or modifying otherwise applicable copayments or deductibles in return for adherence to programs of health promotion and disease prevention.

History: En. Sec. 44, Ch. 416, L. 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2014 · leading case: Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 660 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 660 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “1936 (1996), preempts Montana’s “little HIPAA” law, Mont.Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2)(a), for purposes of both conferring federal subject matter jurisdiction and defeating state-law causes of action on the merits.”
Fossen v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Mont. 2014). · cites it 22× “Plaintiffs, attempting to save the Amended Complaint which clearly pleads only a violation of Montana’s "little HIPAA” statute, § 33-22-526, MCA, now assert on remand that the detriment they have suffered derives in part from the inconsistent positions taken by Defendant as to…”
Fossen v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Mont. 2010). · cites it 7× “MontCode Ann. § 33-22-526(2). More to the point for our purposes, ERISA itself contains an identical statutory provision: (b)(1) In general.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2) — 2 cases
Fossen v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Mont. 2014). “Plaintiffs, attempting to save the Amended Complaint which clearly pleads only a violation of Montana’s "little HIPAA” statute, § 33-22-526, MCA, now assert on remand that the detriment they have suffered derives in part from the inconsistent positions taken by Defendant as to…”
Fossen v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Mont. 2010). “MontCode Ann. § 33-22-526(2). More to the point for our purposes, ERISA itself contains an identical statutory provision: (b)(1) In general.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2)(a) — 3 cases
Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 660 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2011). “1936 (1996), preempts Montana’s “little HIPAA” law, Mont.Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2)(a), for purposes of both conferring federal subject matter jurisdiction and defeating state-law causes of action on the merits.”
Fossen v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Mont. 2014). “Plaintiffs, attempting to save the Amended Complaint which clearly pleads only a violation of Montana’s "little HIPAA” statute, § 33-22-526, MCA, now assert on remand that the detriment they have suffered derives in part from the inconsistent positions taken by Defendant as to…”
Fossen v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Mont. 2010). “MontCode Ann. § 33-22-526(2). More to the point for our purposes, ERISA itself contains an identical statutory provision: (b)(1) In general.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2)(b) — 1 case
Fossen v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Mont. 2014). “Plaintiffs, attempting to save the Amended Complaint which clearly pleads only a violation of Montana’s "little HIPAA” statute, § 33-22-526, MCA, now assert on remand that the detriment they have suffered derives in part from the inconsistent positions taken by Defendant as to…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 33-22-526(l)(a) — 1 case
Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 660 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2011). “1936 (1996), preempts Montana’s “little HIPAA” law, Mont.Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2)(a), for purposes of both conferring federal subject matter jurisdiction and defeating state-law causes of action on the merits.”
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.