PACIFICARE OF NEVADA, INC.; PACIFICARE LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY; PACIFICARE LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY; AND UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, vs. DOROTHY ROGERS, Respondent., 127 Nev. 799

Summary

The company argued that the arbitration provision included in the 2007 contract governed the patient's dispute, and that the district court erred in concluding that the arbitration provision was unconscionable under Nevada contract law because such law was preempted by the federal Medicare Act. The supreme court noted that because the 2007 arbitration provision was not explicitly rescinded by the 2008 contract, it survived the expiration of the 2007 contract and its replacement by the 2008 contract. The arbitration provision could be considered "marketing material" by virtue of its placement within the Evidence of Coverage (EOC). The regulations could be considered "standards" for purposes of the Medicare preemption provision. All state standards, including those established through case law, were preempted to the extent they specifically would regulate Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Nevada's unconscionability doctrine was preempted to the extent that it would specifically regulation ...