- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky
The following came up in a discussion with one insurance plan administrator who felt strongly that, unless a plan specifically stated it was willing to act as a secondary payer, it was only obligated to act as a primary payer and then only when no other plan acted, or was willing to act, as a primary payer.
My instinct is that, unless a plan specifically precludes acting as a secondary or paying on a claim that someone else has partially paid as primary, there is a reasonable expectation that the plan will, in fact, at least have to review the rump of the claim for secondary payment.
Any comments? References in precedent or in law?
Thanks for any feedback!
A person is covered for a medical claim by two insurance contracts, both of which allow
(or cover) the specific claim: call them Plan1 and Plan2. If Plan1 pays on the claim as the
primary payer but does not cover the entire cost of the claim, must Plan2 then act as a
secondary payer?
That is, are either of the insurance contracts obligated to review the claim for secondary
payment if the other contract has already paid a portion (but not all) of the claim as
primary?
(or cover) the specific claim: call them Plan1 and Plan2. If Plan1 pays on the claim as the
primary payer but does not cover the entire cost of the claim, must Plan2 then act as a
secondary payer?
That is, are either of the insurance contracts obligated to review the claim for secondary
payment if the other contract has already paid a portion (but not all) of the claim as
primary?
My instinct is that, unless a plan specifically precludes acting as a secondary or paying on a claim that someone else has partially paid as primary, there is a reasonable expectation that the plan will, in fact, at least have to review the rump of the claim for secondary payment.
Any comments? References in precedent or in law?
Thanks for any feedback!