Fox Insurance Co. v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

715 F.3d 1211 (2013)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fox Insurance Co. v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
715 F.3d 1211 (2013)

KD

Facts

The Medicare Act established a federally subsidized health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (defendant) administered Medicare. Medicare Part D provided prescription drug coverage to those who voluntarily enrolled in the program through plans offered by private insurers. In 2006, CMS awarded Fox Insurance Company, Inc. (Fox) (plaintiff) a contract to operate Medicare prescription drug plans. The contract was renewed several times. In 2010, CMS started receiving complaints that Fox improperly delayed or denied access to critical cancer, seizure, and HIV medications. In February, CMS contacted Fox. Fox replied that it had corrected the system error that caused the problem. After further investigation, CMS temporarily suspended Fox’s ability to market its plan and enroll new beneficiaries. In early March, CMS conducted a three-day audit of Fox. The audit revealed that Fox improperly denied coverage for critical medications, forcing patients to forego or postpone life-saving treatments like chemotherapy. Fox also improperly forced patients to undergo invasive medical procedures before covering certain medications. Fox’s compliance officer admitted that the company had no compliance plans or procedures in place. On March 8, Fox detailed the remedial steps it had allegedly taken to correct various issues. However, Fox did not undertake many of those actions until after the audit started. On March 9, CMS immediately terminated Fox’s contract, finding that any delay would pose an imminent and serious threat to enrollees’ health. Fox unsuccessfully challenged CMS’s decision through administrative channels. Fox then sued CMS in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment in CMS’s favor on the merits. Fox appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Schroeder, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership