|
In September 2024, AANA filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, asking the court to compel the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to enforce the provider nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against insurance companies and health plans. HHS subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss AANA’s petition. After the court granted HHS’ Motion to Dismiss, AANA filed an appeal in September 2025. On July 21,2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the appeal. AANA issued the following statement from President Jeff Molter, MSN, MBA, CRNA, on the decision. “We disagree with today’s ruling and are disappointed that the court will not compel the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to enforce the provider nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act, which was later reinforced in the bipartisan No Surprises Act,” said AANA President Jeff Molter, MSN, MBA, CRNA. “HHS should have acted years ago. |
 |
![2026 DEA Mate Act Training Bundle House Ads Set - (160 x 240 px)[32]](https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NZekrsgPtTFxoxgWcwyDRm01K09s9S5vAJmRlsFtPqRuEx0Q32pYZnCgzg8rLqnN4h6p2lTPnhQ18Scn2iZ5WrL20FsbC5RSh-fMm6GfSoe_zKFwDaY8PYABXAitPcAOWTZQ757Rozazt0oz78i4OnTiF-NJOiVUz1z4y8x7Zo20Fg4KKMUswHkwgLBGv59cJl2ANEOzks1u8fcKxcp89qzzuLlVpkOp8PxM8Mx5wkn0oh0sEDBDXcT63TkfNn0pdHhbiaJGgJE0CwrliF9q3Bcio0lRbTvnU5I4fZPsmne_sjGWY0cf5HrAhDMgBgBR4zp4dDQ6-RF9-lYzjnXigQt20uUkH_WnNx-N0AiaCsGeyEAedO_VvQQg9ublU0iEbxZpxSwvMqh=s0-d-e1-ft#https://info.aana.com/hs-fs/hubfs/2026%20DEA%20Mate%20Act%20Training%20Bundle%20%20House%20Ads%20Set%20-%20(160%20x%20240%20px)%5B32%5D.gif?width=320&upscale=true&name=2026%20DEA%20Mate%20Act%20Training%20Bundle%20%20House%20Ads%20Set%20-%20(160%20x%20240%20px)%5B32%5D.gif) |
|
“The decision relies heavily on the court’s interpretation of associational standing, finding that the initial ruling that AANA lacked standing was correct. Associational standing is a core tenet of professional and trade associations seeking to protect the interests of their members. AANA is evaluating the decision’s implications for how associations vindicate their members’ interests in federal court, and we encourage all associations to do the same. “This decision does not validate the behavior of insurance companies and their practice of reduced reimbursement for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) provided services. AANA maintains that reducing such reimbursement for the same services provided by physician anesthesiologists is discriminatory and inconsistent with the protections Congress enacted. Today’s decision was procedural and does not endorse the insurance companies’ payment practices. AANA maintains that such practices remain unlawful under current statute. “AANA remains focused on working with our state partners to create local momentum that would protect CRNAs from discriminatory reimbursement practices while we explore future federal pathways.” |
