Can an employer change insurers due to an employee’s cancer treatment in which the patient’s hospital would only take the insurance provided by their employer?

UPDATED: Oct 1, 2022

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

UPDATED: Oct 1, 2022Fact Checked

Get Legal Help Today

Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save

secured lock Secured with SHA-256 Encryption

Can an employer change insurers due to an employee’s cancer treatment in which the patient’s hospital would only take the insurance provided by their employer?

My daughter was being treated for stage IV cancer. Her bill’s were quite expensive but the employer’s insurance was being charged large amounts due to the treatments. The CEO of her company changed insurers in midstream of her treatments due to the enormous costs. Her employer changed insurance

companies knowing that by changing, my daughter would no longer have

treatments from her current physician. She went downhill physically soon after and passed away. Is this legal?

Asked on July 29, 2018 under Employment Labor Law, Mississippi


SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 4 years ago | Contributor

Yes, it is legal. Your daughter's employer does not have any legal obligation to maintain a particular type or level of insurance, or insurance provider, for the benefit of its employees; the employer has no duty to care for its employees' medical needs. It can change insurance if  its insurance is too expensive; it is not obligaged to suffer financial harm for its employess, and it can make this change even if it will disadvantage or harm employees. This, unfortunately, is all a logical consequence of having a system where private employer, who are allowed and even expected to try to maximize profit for themselves, investors, owners, shareholders, etc., are also relied on to provide insurance coverage--a very expensive proposition--for employeees; employees' needs conflict with the employer's needs and interests, but the employer is NOT required to put the employee first. Your daugher could have, in the law's eyes, paid for her own medical care regardless of her insurance coverage--that may not have been feasible as a practical matter, but legally, she had the right to pay and conversely, her employer did not have the obligation to maintain her coverage. The employer could have even cancelled coverage entirely (stopped paying it), possibly at the cost of paying a penalty, but that penalty is less than the cost of health insurance; the law does not mandate providing any insurance, let alone adequate, for employees.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.

Get Legal Help Today

Find the right lawyer for your legal issue.

secured lock Secured with SHA-256 Encryption