In a case challenging Aetna’s “level of severity” policy, under which Aetna pays less than its contracts require for certain inpatient admissions, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania (HAP) to file an amicus brief explaining why disputes over nationwide policies like Aetna’s should be litigated and not arbitrated. AHA and HAP’s brief explained that litigation is more efficient than arbitration, and it is fairer because litigation (unlike confidential arbitration) creates precedent that promotes uniform decisions and allows smaller hospitals to vindicate their rights. Aetna opposed the filing of the amicus brief, but the Court held, “Through well-supported argument, [AHA and HAP] have shown that a) they possess a special interest in the legal outcome of this matter; b) their interests are not adequately represented by the parties; c) submission is both timely and useful; and d) although they have an interest in the broader implications of the Court’s ruling, that interest does not bar their participation.”
Henry Quillen of Whatley Kallas represented the AHA and HAP. The opinion granting leave to file the amicus brief can be found here. The amicus brief can be found here.