Summary
The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question concerning whether state insurance statutes required Regence BlueShield to cover all FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. The court held that RCW 48.43.018(3) and RCW 48.43.035(1) did not impose such a coverage requirement and answered the certified question in the negative.
Holdings
- The statutes do not require a health carrier to cover all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices merely because the carrier provides a general prescription-drug benefit.
Questions Presented
- Whether Regence's failure to provide coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive methods violated RCW 48.43.018(3).
- Whether Regence's failure to provide coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive methods violated RCW 48.43.035(1).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash. 2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)(followed)
- Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at 9, 43 P.3d 4(followed)
- Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (2001)(described)
- Glasebrook v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 100 Wash. App. 538, 543 n.3, 997 P.2d 981 (2000)(described)
- Glasebrook, 100 Wash. App. at 542-43, 997 P.2d 981(described)
- State v. Neher, 112 Wash. 2d 347, 351, 771 P.2d 330 (1989)(followed)
- State v. Day, 96 Wash. 2d 646, 648, 638 P.2d 546 (1981)(followed)
- Marquis v. City of Spokane, 130 Wash. 2d 97, 111, 922 P.2d 43 (1996)(followed)
- Broad v. Mannesmann Anlagenbau, A.G., 141 Wash. 2d 670, 676, 10 P.3d 371 (2000)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…