context: The Court finds that the Any Willing Provider Statute fails the common sense test because it is not specifically directed towards the insurance industry, but, rather, it expressly applies to entities outside the insurance industry, such as employers and Taft-Hartley trusts.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 995 F.2d 504, 504
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that Virginia's statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry
citation_a.sentence: See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(3)(a)-(b) (West 1987); Hayden, 843 F.Supp. at 1434 (“[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract”); cf. Stuart Circle, 995 F.2d at 504 (holding that Virginia’s statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 843 F.Supp. 1434, 1434
citation_b.parenthetical: "[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract"
citation_b.sentence: See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(3)(a)-(b) (West 1987); Hayden, 843 F.Supp. at 1434 (“[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract”); cf. Stuart Circle, 995 F.2d at 504 (holding that Virginia’s statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry).