Bon Secours and Cigna reach agreement, keeping 30,000 Virginians in-network
Bon Secours St. Mary's Hospital, Richmond, Va. Parker Michels-Boyce for The Virginia Mercury
Bon Secours and commercial health insurer Cigna have reached a deal to keep over 30,000 Virginians in-network, averting interruptions in care and higher health care costs for patients after months of protracted contract negotiations and uncertainty.
The new multi-year agreement, reached by the Catholic health care system and insurer April 1 following a 24-hour deadline extension, means that Bon Secours hospitals, doctors, urgent care centers, ambulatory surgical centers and other care centers will remain in-network and accessible to Virginia citizens whose workplace health insurance is provided by Cigna.
'We believe that access to quality health care services is vital for our community members. After several months of negotiations, we are pleased to have reached a new agreement that protects our patients' access to affordable, compassionate care close to home,' Dr. C. Bart Rountree, executive medical director of Women's & Children's Services for Bon Secours Richmond, said in a statement on Wednesday.
The crux of the contract conflict, Bon Secours previously stated, was Cigna's reimbursement rates, which the health care system said were not 'keeping pace with inflation and are below fair market standards. Being fairly reimbursed by our payer partners (insurance companies) is what
enables us to continue to deliver the highest quality of care to our patients.' Cigna, in turn, had alleged that Bon Secours wanted a rate increase equaling 30% over five years, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
The dispute had been dragging on since August of 2024, fueling concern from patients insured through Cigna as they watched and wondered if they would still be able to see their preferred provider at Bon Secours facilities should negotiations fail.
But a state law enacted in 2024 allows health care providers to continue treating patients at least 90 days after the provider disconnects from the insurer's network. Pregnant people can continue receiving care during the postpartum period, under this measure. Patients with a life-threatening condition may receive up to 180 days of care after their provider goes out-of-network, and people being treated at in-patient facilities may continue to be cared for by their provider until they are discharged.
The following Bon Secours hospitals in Virginia are impacted by the health system's renewed agreement with Cigna:
Hampton Roads:
Bon Secours – Mary Immaculate Hospital
Bon Secours – Maryview Medical Center
Bon Secours – Southampton Medical Center
Bon Secours – Harbour View Medical Center
Richmond:
Bon Secours – Memorial Regional Medical Center
Bon Secours – Rappahannock General Hospital
Bon Secours – Richmond Community Hospital
Bon Secours – St. Francis Medical Center
Bon Secours – St. Mary's Hospital
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kettering Health Cyberattack: Here's what is being done for patients with sensitive info on dark web
Kettering Health has announced that they have resumed normal operations after key services were knocked out by a cyberattack for nearly three weeks. [DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] They say they are working to identify what data was impacted in the cyberattack. 'Our investigation is ongoing, and we will directly notify any impacted individuals,' Kettering Health said in their press release. 'Notifications may include fraud protection resources, such as identity theft or credit monitoring.' >>RELATED: Kettering Health officials acknowledge impacts of cyber attack are 'extremely frustrating' TRENDING STORIES: New evidence raises more questions in search for father accused of killing 3 daughters Brand new aviation video shows man throwing wood at deputies, causing wrong-way crash on I-75 'Long and difficult process,' Pastor speaks on restoration efforts after fire at Catholic church Kettering Health says services such as surgery, imaging, retail pharmacy and physician office visits are back to normal. MyChart, which was restored Monday, is functional for patients. According to an update from the network, patients are now able to view upcoming appointments, schedule appointments, view prescription lists, message their providers and view test results. >>PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Kettering Health cyberattack; Hacker group claims responsibility, sensitive info put on dark web Kettering Health says their cyber security and employee security training will 'effectively mitigate future risks.' News Center 7 will continue to follow this story. [SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Catholic employers can't be forced to provide gender-affirming care, federal judge in ND rules
The Quentin Burdick federal courthouse in Fargo, North Dakota. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) A North Dakota federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cannot force a group of Catholic employers to administer or pay for gender-affirming medical care. The case concerns two rules published by the federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services rule bars businesses that provide federally funded health programs from withholding medical care to someone just because they are transgender. Doing so would violate an anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the rule states. The lawsuit also challenged a similar rule published by the EEOC implementing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws workplace discrimination for employers with more than 15 employees. The rule holds that such employers cannot refuse to cover medical services to a transgender staff member that they would otherwise cover for other employees. Federal judge in North Dakota rules in favor of Catholic employers on abortion protections The Catholic Benefits Association — which represents Catholic employers — filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in North Dakota alleging the rules will force its members to violate their religious beliefs. The association said the rules could require Catholic hospitals to perform gender-affirming surgeries or a Catholic ministry to cover an employee's hormone replacement therapy, for example. The Catholic church teaches that providing gender-affirming care to transgender people is immoral, the association states in its complaint. The Department of Health and Human Services and EEOC defended the rules as necessary to protect Americans from gender-based discrimination, and further argued that the policies won't harm religious exercise because employers can ask for religious exemptions from the rules on a case-by-case basis. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte found these options insufficient because they do not guarantee exemptions to religious organizations, leaving them 'unable to predict their legal exposure.' Welte in an order last week sided largely with the Catholic Benefits Association. Welte found that the rules violate broad protections for religious exercise established in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That act states that the government can only limit religious exercise in service of a 'compelling government interest,' and must make every effort to be as minimally restrictive as possible. Welte said that the Department of Health and Human Services and EEOC rules don't meet these standards. The policies force Catholic organizations to decide between going against their beliefs and being subject to discrimination investigations and lawsuits, he wrote in the order. He ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot interpret the Affordable Care Act in a way that requires the Catholic Benefits Association to administer or provide insurance coverage for gender-affirming procedures. He similarly found that the EEOC cannot interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the association to provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures. The lawsuit also challenged other protections in the rules related to abortion and fertility treatments, though Welte dismissed those claims. The Catholic Benefits Association filed the lawsuit as a successor to a previous case it joined with other Catholic groups against the Department of Health and Human Services and the EEOC. Welte also sided with the plaintiffs in that case, though an appellate court in 2022 found the Catholic Benefits Association didn't have standing to be part of the suit. In another case involving the Catholic Benefits Association, North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor in April ruled that the association is exempt from provisions in two separate EEOC policies — one meant to shield workers from LGBTQ-based workplace harassment, and another that sought to protect workers' access to abortion and fertility treatments. Other federal judges have since issued rulings vacating parts of both rules nationwide. A federal judge in Texas in May vacated portions of the workplace harassment rule that pertain to sexual harassment and gender identity. Later that month, a federal judge in Louisiana struck down the abortion access protections. The decisions come as President Donald Trump's administration is rolling back services and legal protections, including by restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors and implementing a blanket ban on transgender people serving in the military. Trump signed an executive order in January establishing a two-gender policy for the federal government. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Medscape
15 hours ago
- Medscape
Judge Allows Docs' Lawsuit Against MultiPlan to Proceed
A district judge has ruled that physicians can move forward with a federal lawsuit that accuses insurers and an analytics company of underpaying them by billions through a price-fixing scheme for out-of-network services. In a June 3 decision, US District Judge Matthew Kennelly wrote that providers have alleged a direct injury from the reported price-fixing agreement and that their antitrust claims against data company MultiPlan are valid. The ruling addresses two consolidated complaints by several plaintiffs, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Illinois State Medical Society (ISMS), against MultiPlan, which has now changed its name to Claritev. The medical associations claim MultiPlan/Claritev and third-party payers violated federal and state antitrust laws with a price-fixing conspiracy that forced physicians to accept increasingly low payments for out-of-network services. The suit names Aetna, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, as 'co-conspirators' in the complaint, among other 'smaller' insurers. AMA President Bruce A. Scott, MD, praised the court for allowing the case to proceed, calling the ruling 'the clearest statement yet by a court that MultiPlan's lack of transparency, accuracy, and integrity in the insurer-run system for paying out-of-network medical bills is an antitrust violation.' 'MultiPlan and the commercial health insurance companies have profited from the rigged system while forcing physicians to accept lower and lower payment amounts for out-of-network services — payments that in many cases do not cover the cost of delivering care to patients,' Scott said in a media statement. 'Ending this conspiracy is a good start toward creating an open and honest system that will restore fair reimbursements and help ensure patients have access to the care they need.' A Claritev spokeswoman told Medscape Medical News in an email that the company remains 'confident that the facts will reinforce what we've consistently said — that these lawsuits are without merit and fail to acknowledge the critical role our competitive options play in reducing healthcare costs for employers and improving access for patients.' 'These lawsuits will only serve to increase healthcare [costs] for employers and patients. We will vigorously defend ourselves through the legal process while remaining focused on delivering value to our customers and the broader healthcare ecosystem.' ISMS President Richard C. Anderson, MD, said the medical society appreciates the ruling and that it's 'time for MultiPlan to face the music.' 'The company can change its name, but it doesn't change the fact that they reaped huge profits from this price-fixing collusion,' Anderson wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News . 'They routinely paid below-market reimbursement rates to physician for out-of-network healthcare services with no transparency in their process. Patients and physicians deserve better.' Alleged Price-Fixing Conspiracy On its website, Claritev describes itself as a healthcare technology, data, and insights company that focuses on improving affordability, transparency, and quality. The company offers an alternative method for calculating a third-party payer's out-of-network rate through its Data iSight algorithm, according to court records. Data iSight calculates rates by referencing the cost of the service to the provider and the median payment for similar services rendered, according to the legal summary. Using these metrics, the algorithm tends to produce lower payment rates than Usual, Customary, and Reasonable benchmarks. If payers agree to use a Data iSight-calculated rate, the company offers to negotiate the rate with providers on behalf of the insurer. During the negotiation, MultiPlan/Claritev conditions all payments on a provider's agreement not to balance bill the patient, according to the legal summary. The plaintiffs allege the company's rates are provided on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis and that they were unable to convince the company to deviate from a Data iSight-calculated rate. Providers can still decline MultiPlan's offer and seek payment directly from the patient and the insurer, according to court documents. An April 2020 study by the Office of the New York State Comptroller found that payments based on MultiPlan's repricing methodology at the time were 1.5-49 times lower than payments for the same services based on the traditional method of calculating out-of-network payment rates for physicians, according to the AMA. The physician plaintiffs contend the company undercuts fair payment for out-of-network healthcare services and eliminates market competition. The 'widespread conspiracy' between the company and insurers has forced many medical practices to shut down, cease offering certain services, or seek other employment arrangements, according to their complaint. Insurers have contracted with MultiPlan to use its Data iSight algorithm and negotiation services since 2015, and by 2018, hundreds of third-party payers had contracts with the company, according to court records. The company grew to having contracts with more than 700 third-party payers and, in 2019, processed more than 80% of out-of-network healthcare service payments, according to court documents. A 2024 New York Times investigation found that both the company and insurers made more money when then-MultiPlan lowered fees paid to physicians for out-of-network services. In May 2024, Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), US senators, requested more information from MultiPlan, expressing concern that the company might be driving up costs for consumers. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) also sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in May 2024, seeking an investigation into what she deemed 'potentially anticompetitive conduct.' Company Argues Claims Invalid MultiPlan/Claritev asked the court to throw out the complaint, arguing the plaintiffs have not asserted a viable federal antitrust claim because they have not proven antitrust standing nor shown how the company violated antitrust law. Even if the providers are getting below-market payments, the company said the doctors have failed to allege the lesser payments are due to a harm to competition. Rather, MultiPlan/Claritev's services increase competition by providing another rate calculation option, and its services are further beneficial because they lower costs to third-party payers and patients, the company's attorneys argued. In addition, the company contended that providers have not been directly injured by the alleged party payer agreement to fix prices because 'they can always seek full payment from the patient.' However, Kennelly wrote that the providers have alleged a direct injury because the alleged balance billing prohibition prevents providers from seeking the remaining payment from patients and 'shields patients from the consequences of the alleged third-party payor price-fixing agreement.' If MultiPlan/Claritev's services are harmful or beneficial to competition is a matter for further court analysis, Kennelly also said. 'Whether MultiPlan facilitates a third-party payor price-fixing agreement or is simply another pricing option for payors is a factual dispute that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss,' he wrote in his ruling. The judge, however, dismissed the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims against the company. Kennelly wrote the physicians failed to allege an unjust enrichment claim under a specific state law. A case management conference in the case is scheduled for June 17.
