Last Updated: Apr 10, 2025
Earlier this week, PAMED and the AMA filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of the effort of the Pennsylvania Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) to have the Supreme Court review its case against Governor Shapiro and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Court will now have the opportunity to consider the brief as it determines whether to exercise its option to take the case for review. The Court’s decision on whether to hear the case can be expected prior to the Court recessing at the end of June.
The JUA, Pennsylvania’s medical malpractice insurer of last resort, seeks to have the Court overturn the finding of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that the JUA is a public, not private, entity. That decision, if not reversed, will allow the Commonwealth to take control of the JUA and transfer the JUA’s $300 million reserve to the state treasury. The JUA’s reserve consists entirely of unspent premiums collected from PA physicians and the growth from the investment of those funds.
As background, the JUA was established by state statute back in 1975 in order to insure physicians who were otherwise unable to secure affordable coverage, usually due to a negative malpractice history or extended break from practice. The creating legislation insulated the Commonwealth from the JUA’s liabilities and the Commonwealth appropriated no funds to establish the JUA. The JUA self-funds by collecting premiums and investing surplus funds. By early 2020, the JUA held surplus funds as a reserve totaling $298 million.
The General Assembly passed, and Governor Wolf signed, three bills in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, that sought to require the JUA to transfer $200 million surplus funds (2017 act), transfer all JUA assets (2018 act), and acquiesce to Commonwealth control (2019 act). The JUA filed suit in federal court to fight all of these efforts and was successful at the trial court level. The JUA based its claims that the state’s efforts to seize JUA funds constituted multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution.
The brief argues the following: That the 3rd Circuit court misapplied the test to determine whether the JUA is a public versus private entity; That Pennsylvania is moving into a “hard” insurance market making the availability of the JUA critical to access to healthcare for Pennsylvanians; and that it is important for the Court to take the case to bring consistency across the county on public versus private entity distinction.
You may read the brief here.