In This Issue:

- MISSISSIPPI GOVERNOR RESCINDS EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIRING BLUE CROSS OF MISSISSIPPI TO GRANT “IN NETWORK” STATUS TO EXCLUDED HOSPITALS:

In early November, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant rescinded an Executive Order (Executive Order 1327), issued only weeks earlier, that would have compelled Blue Cross of Mississippi to continue to offer “innetwork” status to several Mississippi hospitals with whom Blue Cross had terminated its relationship as a result of a contract dispute with them....

- HEARING HELD ON PENNSYLVANIA’S NOVEL “ANY WILLING INSURER” LEGISLATION:

On December 18, 2013, the Pennsylvania House Health Committee held a hearing on Pennsylvania House Bills 1621 and 1622, two bills that would require that any health provider in the state that operates as part of an integrated delivery system (i.e., a health system that also has its own health plan, as many larger systems do) contract with “any willing insurer” desiring to contract with the provider. The legislation, the first of its kind in the country, is essentially the reverse of the “any willing provider” legislation that has been enacted in over 30 states over the last several decades that require health insurers to accept every provider meeting its credentialing requirements into its provider network...

- 7TH CIRCUIT SUGGESTS FILED RATE DOCTRINE MAY NOT APPLY TO CLAIMS RELATED TO ILLINOIS PROPERTY/CASUALTY RATES:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently questioned whether the Filed Rate Doctrine – an exemption doctrine that bars actions challenging the reasonableness of rates charged by entities that a subject to federal or state regulatory approval – applies to property and casualty insurers in Illinois....

- SENATE PASSES AN ANTITRUST “WHISTLEBLOWER” PROTECTION BILL:

On November 4, 2013, the United States Senate passed S. 42, the “Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act,” by unanimous consent. The legislation, introduced back in January of 2013 with bipartisan support (Senators Leahy (D) and Grassley (R)), provides protections to employees that provide information to the federal government about possible antitrust violations by their employer. Specifically, no employer may “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or in any other manner discriminate” against an employee that, in good faith, reports a potential antitrust violation to the federal government....