04/17/2026
Another federal court has affirmed what providers already know: the IDR process works as Congress intended.
A U.S. District Judge in Florida dismissed CVS-Aetna's lawsuit against Radiology Partners with prejudice, rejecting the insurer's attempt to unwind IDR outcomes through litigation. The court made clear that objections to arbitration results belong inside the process, not in federal court after the fact.
This follows a similar dismissal of an Anthem affiliate's lawsuit filed against HaloMD.
The pattern is hard to ignore. When independent, government-approved arbitrators consistently rule in favor of providers, some payers are choosing courtrooms over contracts. Courts are responding with a consistent message: the No Surprises Act created a defined framework. Use it.
Fair reimbursement is not fraud.
Providers exercising their rights under federal law is not a scheme. And the IDR process is not something to be undone when the outcome is inconvenient.
The path forward is straightforward: good-faith negotiation, sustainable contracts, and a shared commitment to the patients and communities that depend on both sides getting this right.
"This case reflects a troubling pattern in which payers, dissatisfied with IDR results, increasingly try to attack those outcomes outside the framework Congress created," Rad Partners says.