FEDERAL · 29 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER I—PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS

Required coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomies

29 U.S.C. § 1185b
Title29Labor
SubtitleB
ChapterSUBCHAPTER I—PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS
PartSubpart B—Other Requirements

This text of 29 U.S.C. § 1185b (Required coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
29 U.S.C. § 1185b.

Text

(a)In general A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, that provides medical and surgical benefits with respect to a mastectomy shall provide, in a case of a participant or beneficiary who is receiving benefits in connection with a mastectomy and who elects breast reconstruction in connection with such mastectomy, coverage for—
(1)all stages of reconstruction of the breast on which the mastectomy has been performed;
(2)surgery and reconstruction of the other breast to produce a symmetrical appearance; and
(3)prostheses and physical complications of mastectomy, including lymphedemas; in a manner determined in consultation with the attending physician and the patient. Such coverage may be subject to ann

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Haag v. MVP Health Care
866 F. Supp. 2d 137 (N.D. New York, 2012)
19 case citations
Krauss v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.
418 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D. New York, 2005)
18 case citations
J.L.F. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
4 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 843 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2004)
16 case citations
Howard v. Coventry Health Care, of Iowa, Inc.
293 F.3d 442 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)
15 case citations
Iwata v. Intel Corp.
349 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Massachusetts, 2004)
14 case citations
Davidson v. Wal-Mart Associates Health and Welfare Plan
305 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (S.D. Iowa, 2004)
12 case citations
Shaw v. McFarland Clinic, P.C.
231 F. Supp. 2d 924 (S.D. Iowa, 2002)
6 case citations
Howard v. Coventry Health Care of Iowa, Inc.
158 F. Supp. 2d 937 (S.D. Iowa, 2001)
2 case citations
Muth v. Sebelius
856 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (C.D. California, 2012)
Krauss v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.
517 F.3d 614 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Howard v. Coventry Health Care
293 F.3d 442 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)

Source Credit

History

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §713, as added Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title IX, §902(a)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–436.)

Editorial Notes

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date
Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title IX, §902(c)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–438, provided that:
"(1) In general.—The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998].
"(2) Special rule for collective bargaining agreements.—In the case of a group health plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective bargaining agreements between employee representatives and 1 or more employers, any plan amendment made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any requirement added by this section shall not be treated as a termination of such collective bargaining agreement."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 U.S.C. § 1185b, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/29/1185b.