November 18, 2019

November 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Best Practices in Administering Benefit Claims #3 – Dealing with Benefit Assignments

Our blog series on best practices in administering benefit claims has thus far stressed the importance of knowing and reading the plan document and summary plan description.  This week, we take a look at a plan term that has been the subject of frequent dispute in health and welfare benefits claim litigation—interpretation of plan provisions prohibiting a participant’s right to assign benefits to healthcare providers.

Out-of-network medical providers commonly require patients to sign documents that purport to assign their rights to plan benefits to the provider.  If this assignment works (if it’s valid), it would allow the medical provider to “step into the shoes” of the patient and challenge the amount a plan pays to the provider.  This would give the provider direct rights against the plan, including through a plan administrative claim and, if necessary, litigation.

Under ERISA, group health plans are allowed to prohibit benefit assignments and, for a variety of reasons, many plans do so.  With a valid anti-assignment provision, plans have successfully defeated claims brought by out-of-network providers seeking additional plan reimbursements.

Anti-assignment provisions must be drafted carefully and clearly so they will accurately reflect the plan sponsor’s intentions.  Some of the issues to consider include:  Will the plan prohibit all benefit assignments? Will it prohibit only the assignment of payment of benefits?  Will it only prohibit the provider from commencing action in court?  Will it require that providers and participants get the plan administrator’s consent before the assignment is valid?  Plan sponsors generally have wide latitude to limit, or prohibit altogether, the assignment of benefits.

In considering anti-assignment provisions, there are two other points to remember:

First, ERISA allows participants to designate authorized representatives to act on their behalf through the claims process.  This could mean that a provider, an attorney, or any other individual could be appointed to act on behalf of the participant.  Unlike a properly designated assignee, however, an authorized representative does not step into the shoes of the participant and does not acquire rights independent of the participant.  A plan may provide for reasonable procedures that participants must follow in designating authorized representatives, which may facilitate benefit claim administration.

Second, many health plans will have “direct payment” provisions whereby the plan will pay out-of-network benefits directly to a provider as a convenience to the participant.  A properly drafted anti-assignment clause will distinguish between a permissible direct payment arrangement from a prohibited assignment of benefits.  This is an important and difficult provision to draft, and counsel should be consulted on this point.

Next week, we’ll discuss the importance of knowing and understanding the applicable law and regulations on benefit claim and appeal procedures.

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Paul Hamburger Employee Benefits Law Attorney Proskauer Rose Law Firm
Partner

Paul M. Hamburger is co-chair of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group and head of the Washington, DC office. Paul is also a leader of the Practice Center’s health and welfare subgroup and a member of Proskauer’s Health Care Reform Task Force.

Paul provides technical knowledge and advice to employers on all aspects of their employee benefit programs, and advises employee benefit plan trustees and service providers on ERISA and employee benefit plan-related matters. He has extensive experience in negotiating service provider...

202.416.5850
Russell L Hirschhorn ERISA Litigation, employee benefits attorney, Proskauer
Senior Counsel

Russell Hirschhorn is a Senior Counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he focuses on complex ERISA litigation and advises employers, fiduciaries and trustees on ERISA benefit and fiduciary issues. 

Russell represents employers, plan sponsors, plans, trustees, directed trustees and fiduciaries in all phases of litigation, arbitration and mediation involving employee benefits, including class action and individual claims relating to ERISA’s fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions, denials of claims for benefits, severance plans, ERISA Section 510, retiree benefits, ERISA preemption of state law claims, plan investment losses, cash balance plan conversions, plan amendments or terminations, withdrawal liability, and employer contributions to multiemployer funds

212.969.3286
Malerie Bulot Labor Employment Attorney
Associate

Malerie L. Bulot is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Malerie received her J.D. and diploma in comparative law, magna cum laude, from Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, where she was a senior editor of the Louisiana Law Review and Order of the Coif. While at LSU, she served as a judicial extern to United States District Judge Shelly D. Dick, Middle District of Louisiana.

Education

  • Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center , J.D., D.C....
504.310.4084