A district court judge has denied a request by UnitedHealth Group to preemptively block enactment of a new law that the health insurance titan says will cause irreparable harm to its business in Minnesota even before it goes into effect on Jan. 1.
The Minnetonka-based company filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Human Services and Attorney General Keith Ellison earlier this month alleging the DFL-controlled legislature passed a 1,400 page “jumbo omnibus” bill on May 19 in violation of the Minnesota Constitution’s single subject and single title clauses.
Gov. Tim Walz signed the legislation five days later despite protest from Republican legislative leaders who wrote Walz a letter asking him to veto the bill and warned him the bill violated the state constitution and risked a lawsuit.
In the complaint the healthcare company asked the court to order a preliminary injunction to prevent Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead from “enforcing its non-renewal of UnitedHealth’s contracts with the state of Minnesota as an HMO provider on the basis of the unconstitutional HMO provision” of the legislation. It also asks the court to declare that the “HMO Provision does not apply to the renewal of its Contracts with the Department and that it was error for the Commissioner (in June) to refuse to renew the contracts on that basis.”
Among the hundreds of unrelated provisions contained in the bill, HF5427, that Gov. Tim Walz signed into law in May is one provision that UnitedHealth says will prohibit the Minnesota Department of Human Services from entering into a contract with any HMO that is a for-profit corporation.
“Buried in the Jumbo Omnibus is a provision that adversely affects Plaintiffs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated … by prohibiting the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services from entering into new contracts with for-profit HMOs,” attorneys with Minneapolis-based law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath wrote in the complaint filed Aug. 2. “UnitedHealth brings this suit to enforce the democratic protections of the Minnesota Constitution and to have the provision declared unconstitutional under the Single Subject and Title clauses and stricken from law.”
Judge says UHG’s request for temporary injunction is moot
Immediately after filing the lawsuit, UnitedHealth also filed a temporary restraining order, or temporary injunction, which asked the court to enjoin the state Department of Human Services from “enforcing (its) non-renewal of UnitedHealth’s contracts with the state of Minnesota.” UnitedHealth told the court that if the TRO was not granted by Aug. 14, the company “would lose its ability to offer the Integrated Special Needs plan and its Minnesota Senior Health Options plan. The current members of those plans will be forced to find new plans.”
The parties met in court to argue the merits of the TRO on Aug. 14. Judge Mark Ireland then denied UnitedHealth’s TRO request. He wrote that he denied the request because “if the court were to grant such relief, the court would be abusing its discretion by changing the status quo by inserting new terms into the contracts” that “had been previously negotiated and agreed upon prior to passage of the Omnibus Bill at issue. Thus, the Temporary Restraining Order is not restraining anything.”
A spokesperson for UnitedHealth Group did not return requests for comment this week.
Earlier this month the health insurance company told Alpha News that “UnitedHealthcare is challenging legislation that limits choice for individuals, families and children in Minnesota.”
“Minnesotans deserve the right to choose among health plans that offer the broadest access to care, the most innovative services and the highest quality benefits to meet their health care needs,” the company added.
UnitedHealth amended its complaint on Wednesday, where it maintains that “if this Jumbo Omnibus does not violate the Constitution’s Single Subject Clause, then no bill does. And if the courts do not enforce the Single Subject Clause against this Jumbo Omnibus, then the Single Subject Clause is a nullity.”
Among the list of the dozens of wide-ranging new laws that Democrat legislators wrote into the 1,400-page bill they passed around 11 p.m. on May 19, the last day of session, are the following:
- Requirement that health plans provide for coverage of abortions and abortion-related services
- New standards for assisted living facilities
- A ban on binary triggers
- Modification to the Child Tax Credit
- Increased regulation of combat sports
- New requirements for Public Utilities Commission to assess impact of emissions at large power plants
- New bonding sources for the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board
- Funding for a study of homeowners’ associations
- New traffic regulations for motorcycles
- Establishment of a pilot program installing traffic cameras in Minneapolis
- A new law establishing minimum wage for ride share company drivers
- New veterinary licensing requirements
Hank Long
Hank Long is a journalism and communications professional whose writing career includes coverage of the Minnesota legislature, city and county governments and the commercial real estate industry. Hank received his undergraduate degree at the University of Minnesota, where he studied journalism, and his law degree at the University of St. Thomas. The Minnesota native lives in the Twin Cities with his wife and four children. His dream is to be around when the Vikings win the Super Bowl.
