29 U.S.C. § 1191

Preemption; State flexibility; construction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Continued applicability of State law with respect to health insurance issuers(1) In general

Subject to paragraph (2) and except as provided in subsection (b), this part shall not be construed to supersede any provision of State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement solely relating to health insurance issuers in connection with group health insurance coverage except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents the application of a requirement of this part.

(2) Continued preemption with respect to group health plans

Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect or modify the provisions of section 1144 of this title with respect to group health plans.

(b) Special rules in case of portability requirements(1) In general

Subject to paragraph (2), the provisions of this part relating to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer supersede any provision of State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect a standard or requirement applicable to imposition of a preexisting condition exclusion specifically governed by section 1181 of this title which differs from the standards or requirements specified in such section.

(2) ExceptionsOnly in relation to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer, the provisions of this part do not supersede any provision of State law to the extent that such provision—(A) substitutes for the reference to “6-month period” in section 1181(a)(1) of this title a reference to any shorter period of time;(B) substitutes for the reference to “12 months” and “18 months” in section 1181(a)(2) of this title a reference to any shorter period of time;(C) substitutes for the references to “63 days” in sections 1181(c)(2)(A) and (d)(4)(A) 11 So in original. Section 1181(d)(4) of this title does not contain subpars. of this title a reference to any greater number of days;(D) substitutes for the reference to “30-day period” in sections 1181(b)(2) 22 So in original. Section 1181(b)(2) of this title does not refer to a 30-day period. and (d)(1) of this title a reference to any greater period;(E) prohibits the imposition of any preexisting condition exclusion in cases not described in section 1181(d) of this title or expands the exceptions described in such section;(F) requires special enrollment periods in addition to those required under section 1181(f) of this title; or(G) reduces the maximum period permitted in an affiliation period under section 1181(g)(1)(B) 33 So in original. Probably should be “1181(g)(1)(C)”. of this title.(c) Rules of construction

Except as provided in section 1185 of this title, nothing in this part shall be construed as requiring a group health plan or health insurance coverage to provide specific benefits under the terms of such plan or coverage.

(d) DefinitionsFor purposes of this section—(1) State law

The term “State law” includes all laws, decisions, rules, regulations, or other State action having the effect of law, of any State. A law of the United States applicable only to the District of Columbia shall be treated as a State law rather than a law of the United States.

(2) State

The term “State” includes a State, the Northern Mariana Islands, any political subdivisions of a State or such Islands, or any agency or instrumentality of either.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 731, formerly § 704, as added Pub. L. 104–191, title I, § 101(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1946; renumbered § 731 and amended Pub. L. 104–204, title VI, § 603(a)(3), (b)(1), Sept. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 2935, 2937.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–204, § 603(b)(1), substituted “Except as provided in section 1185 of this title, nothing” for “Nothing”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–204 applicable with respect to group health plans for plan years beginning on and after Jan. 1, 1998, see section 603(c) of Pub. L. 104–204, set out as a note under section 1003 of this title.

Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to group health plans for plan years beginning after June 30, 1997, except as otherwise provided, see section 101(g) of Pub. L. 104–191, set out as a note under section 1181 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936 (2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936 (2016). · cites it 2× “But see 29 U. S. C. §1191 (a)(2) (providing that the new ACA provi- sions shall not be construed to affect or modify the ERISA pre-emption clause as applied to group health plans); 42 U.”

Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 660 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “HIPAA contains an additional express preemption provision relevant here: ERISA § 731(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1191 (a), which is described in greater detail below.”

Maine Educ. Ass'n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa, 842 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D. Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1191 (a) reads: Continued applicability of State law with respect to health insurance issuers (1) In general Subject to paragraph (2) and except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, this part shall not be construed to supersede any provision of State law…”

Hartland Lakeside Jt. No. 3 Sch. Dist. v. Wea Ins., 756 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2014). “Treating every dispute about what insurers do with money received under § 18002 as arising under federal law, and ignoring state-law doctrines about insurers’ duties to their clients, would disrupt the state-federal allocation approved by Congress in the McCarran-Ferguson Act…”

Bittle v. Bahe, 2008 OK 10 (Okla. 2008). “29 U.S.C. § 1191 . . The Wilson Act, 27 U.”

Plumb v. Fluid Pump Serv., Inc., 124 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 1997). “Another new section provides that § 1181 shall supersede state laws related to preexisting condition exclusions, except for those state laws that are, generally speaking, more favorable to the insured.”

Poffenbarger v. Hawaii Mgmt. All. Ass'n, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D. Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “[The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) ] contains an additional express preemption provision relevant here: ERISA § 731(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1191 (a), which is described in greater detail below.”

Andre-Pearson v. Grand Valley Health Plan, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 2d 766 (W.D. Mich. 2013). “Subpart C spans 29 U.S.C. §§ 1191 -1191c. Neither party cites any court opinions interpreting § 1191a(a).”

Hoogenboom v. The Trs. of Allied Servs. Div. Welfare Fund (N.D. Ill. 2021). “” 29 U.S.C.A. § 1191 . In this portion of her brief, Plaintiff also cites to cases that she claims “held that a third party administrator of a self-funded health plan may be sued under ERISA sec.”

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.