Minn. Stat. § 62E.11

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue · 1993 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n · 2006 3 citations

Is stop-loss insurance for employee health-care expenses within the statutory definition of “accident-and-health insurance” so that stop-loss premiums are included in the calculation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association’s annual assessments of its members under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2004)?

Is stop-loss insurance for employee health-care expenses within the statutory definition of “accident-and-health insurance” so that stop-loss premiums are included in the calculation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association’s annual assessments of its members under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2004)?

Is stop-loss insurance for employee health-care expenses within the statutory definition of “accident-and-health insurance” so that stop-loss premiums are included in the calculation of the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association’s annual assessments of its members under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2004)?

HealthPartners, Inc. v. Bernstein · 2003 6 citations

Relator HealthPartners, Inc. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the *358 Minnesota Department of Commerce denying its appeal of its MCHA assessments for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. HealthPartners argues that the payments it received pursuant to Medicare cost contracts were not payments received “for coverage” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 23 (2002). As a result, HealthPart-ners contends, the payments are not in-cludable in its “total accident and health insurance premium[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2002), for purposes of determining its annual MCHA assessment. Because we conclude that the payments received by HealthPartners under Medicare cost contracts are payments received “for coverage” that are includable in HealthPartners’ “total accident and health insurance premiums[s]” for purposes of determining HealthPartners’ MCHA assessments, we affirm.

Relator HealthPartners, Inc. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the *358 Minnesota Department of Commerce denying its appeal of its MCHA assessments for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. HealthPartners argues that the payments it received pursuant to Medicare cost contracts were not payments received “for coverage” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 23 (2002). As a result, HealthPart-ners contends, the payments are not in-cludable in its “total accident and health insurance premium[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2002), for purposes of determining its annual MCHA assessment. Because we conclude that the payments received by HealthPartners under Medicare cost contracts are payments received “for coverage” that are includable in HealthPartners’ “total accident and health insurance premiums[s]” for purposes of determining HealthPartners’ MCHA assessments, we affirm.

Relator HealthPartners, Inc. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the *358 Minnesota Department of Commerce denying its appeal of its MCHA assessments for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. HealthPartners argues that the payments it received pursuant to Medicare cost contracts were not payments received “for coverage” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 23 (2002). As a result, HealthPart-ners contends, the payments are not in-cludable in its “total accident and health insurance premium[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2002), for purposes of determining its annual MCHA assessment. Because we conclude that the payments received by HealthPartners under Medicare cost contracts are payments received “for coverage” that are includable in HealthPartners’ “total accident and health insurance premiums[s]” for purposes of determining HealthPartners’ MCHA assessments, we affirm.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Insurers' Action Council, Inc. v. Markman · 1980 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.