Wit v United Behavioral Health (additional ruling regarding clinical guidelines)

  • About Us
    • Our Approach
    • Our Mission
    • Parity Leadership Group
  • Parity Reports
    • Federal Report
    • State Reports
  • Know Your Rights
    • Common Violations
    • Glossary
    • Solution
    • What is Parity?
  • Resources
    • Parity Advocacy Resources
    • Consumer Resources
    • State Parity Enforcement Actions
    • Milliman Report Overview
    • Issue Briefs
    • Legal Cases
    • 2018 State Parity Statutes Report
  • Filing. Published in U.S. District Court Northern District of California on August 6, 2020 (Case no. 14-cv-02346-JCS; related case no. 14-cv-05337 JCS).
  • Backgroun As a follow-up to the 2019 Wit decision regarding UBH’s flawed use of its internal Level of Care Guidelines (LOCGs), the Court had deferred on the question of whether the diagnosis-specific Coverage Determination Guidelines (CDGs) incorporate elements of the LOCGs, which in turn would have made the use of CDGs inappropriate (for not meeting generally accepted standards of care — GASC).
  • Holding. Judge Joseph C. Spero ruled that the 216 CDGs being challenged by the Plaintiffs all did incorporate one or more elements of the LOCGs, which in turn made their use for making benefit determinations wrongful for the same reasons the use of LOCGs was wrongful.
  • Analysis. Judge Spero in an impressive fashion systematically evaluated and connected all of the 216 CDGs to the LOCGs by identifying eight categories of linkage points.

Website enhancements in progress made possible by

Content Disclaimer: Parity Track is a collaborative forum that works to aggregate and elevate the parity implementation work taking place across the country. The content of this website is always evolving. If you are aware of other parity-related work that is not represented on this website, please contact us so that we can continue to improve this website.

Presented by The Kennedy Forum Scattergood Foundation