Table of Contents
Ready to See Results?
From strategy through execution, Atlantic Health Strategies integrates compliance, operations, and growth into durable, measurable results. Let’s put our expertise to work for your organization.
What a UBH Single Case Agreement Actually Is
A single case agreement (SCA) with United Behavioral Health is a one-off, out-of-network contract that fixes a negotiated rate and authorization terms for a single patient’s episode of care. It is not a network contract, does not guarantee medical necessity coverage, and does not survive a level-of-care change unless the document says so. Useful tool. Frequently misused.
The UBH conversation never happens in a vacuum, because United carries a documented enforcement history that shapes every call with a UM reviewer. In 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against UBH in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, finding UBH’s internally developed Level of Care Guidelines inconsistent with generally accepted clinical standards. The Ninth Circuit later narrowed that win on appeal. Then on August 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero held that fiduciary disloyalty and imprudence claims against UBH remain viable, based on allegations that United adopted the disputed coverage guidelines to further its own financial interest. The Kennedy Forum notes that Judge Spero continued to hold that UBH violated its fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by prioritizing its financial interests over those of plan members when crafting internal coverage guidelines between 2011 and 2017.
That is the context every time a UM reviewer challenges continued stay. So when an admissions coordinator in Phoenix says “we got an SCA,” the follow-up questions matter: at what rate, for what level of care under the ASAM Criteria 4th Edition, with what concurrent review cadence, and with what appeal rights preserved.
Where Operators Lose Money on UBH SCAs
The SCA gets signed. Admissions celebrates. Sixty days later the AR aging report tells a different story.
Failure points our team sees repeat across Florida, Arizona, and Texas programs:
- Rates negotiated verbally and never confirmed in writing.
- Effective date misaligned with the actual admission date.
- No language addressing step-downs from residential to partial hospitalization. PHP is an outpatient level of care and frequently triggers a separate authorization fight.
- Timely filing windows the SCA quietly shortens to 60 or 90 days from date of service.
- Appeal-rights waivers buried in the template.
Then the documentation side. UBH’s UM reviewers work against criteria that have been litigated for years. In the DOL investigation that produced the 2021 Walsh settlement, EBSA found that going back to at least 2013, United reduced reimbursement rates for out-of-network mental health services, thereby overcharging participants for those services, and flagged participants undergoing mental health treatments for a utilization review, resulting in many denials of payment for those services. Counsel documenting the case noted worse: United applied an algorithm to identify and deny medically unnecessary services to nearly all outpatient psychotherapy services while only using a corresponding outlier technique on a limited group of medical/surgical outpatient services.
If a clinical record does not map cleanly to ASAM 4 dimensions, the program loses the concurrent review. The SCA protects the rate. It does not protect the operator from a medical necessity denial.
Parity, the DOL, and Why Your SCA File Is a Compliance File
The federal parity posture hardened, then shifted. On September 9, 2024, the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Treasury released final rules under MHPAEA. The regulations codified the CAA 2021 requirement that plans conduct comparative analyses of NQTLs, including standards related to network composition, out-of-network reimbursement rates, and medical management.
Then the pause. On May 15, 2025, the same Departments announced they “will not enforce the 2024 Final Rule or otherwise pursue enforcement actions, based on a failure to comply that occurs prior to a final decision in the litigation, plus an additional 18 months”. Read the rest of that statement before you celebrate. The Departments also confirmed that MHPAEA’s statutory obligations, as amended by the CAA, 2021, continue to have effect. The 2013 rule still applies. The NQTL comparative analysis requirement still applies. State regulators, including the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation and the Texas Department of Insurance, continue to pursue parity findings against commercial plans.
Why does this matter for SCA practice? A pattern of SCAs is itself evidence. The 2024 RTI update commissioned by the Bowman Family Foundation, analyzing data from more than 22 million commercially insured people, found that patients went out-of-network 3.5 times more often to see a behavioral health clinician than a medical/surgical clinician, 8.9 times more often to see a psychiatrist, 10.6 times more often to see a psychologist, 6.2 times more often for acute behavioral inpatient care, and 19.9 times more often for sub-acute behavioral inpatient care. The same analysis found in-network office visit reimbursement was 22% higher on average for medical/surgical clinicians than for behavioral clinicians. If UBH routinely sends patients out of network in a given market, that is a network adequacy story regulators want to see. Operators should keep the SCA log, denial log, and appeal log clean, and organize them by plan, state, and level of care.
How Operators Should Negotiate and Paper the SCA
A few rules our team uses when working SCAs with UBH and Optum on behalf of clients:
- Get the rate in writing before admission whenever clinically possible. A verbal rate from a UM reviewer is not a contract.
- Specify every level of care the patient may step through. If the SCA covers residential only and the patient steps down to PHP (outpatient), the operator needs a new authorization and ideally an amendment, not a phone call.
- Confirm timely filing inside the SCA itself. Plan default may be 90 or 180 days. SCAs sometimes shorten it. Read the paper.
- Preserve appeal rights. Some SCA templates contain language waiving certain dispute rights. Strike it or do not sign.
- Document medical necessity to ASAM 4 standard. Every shift note, every dimensional update, every discharge readiness review.
The August 2021 Walsh v. United Behavioral Health settlement is why the paper matters. Under that agreement, United Behavioral Health and United Healthcare Insurance Co. Will pay $13.6 million to affected participants and beneficiaries; pay $2,084,249 in penalties; and take other corrective actions following investigations and litigation by the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York State Attorney General. In the joint statement, then-Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh said, “Protecting access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment is a priority for the Department of Labor and something I believe in strongly as a person in long-term recovery”. If a billing team closes SCAs without clinical leadership and revenue integrity both signing off, the operator has a process problem that will surface in the next SIU audit.
The Strategic View
SCAs are a symptom. They tell an operator that the in-network economics with a given payer do not work for the program, or the payer’s network is inadequate, or both. CEOs who treat SCAs as a permanent revenue strategy make a mistake. Most Florida and Arizona programs our team advises that depend on SCAs for more than 25% of net revenue sit one payer policy change away from a covenant problem.
CEOs running multi-site behavioral health platforms should build a deliberate payer plan: which contracts to pursue in-network, which to walk away from, which to fight on parity grounds, and which to accept SCA-only with disciplined documentation.
The Wit record still matters. Following the August 2025 order, class counsel Caroline Reynolds of Zuckerman Spaeder said, “This is a crucial step forward for our clients and reinforces the legal requirement that ERISA plan fiduciaries act solely in the plan members’ interests rather than prioritizing their own bottom line”. Read that quote back with a UM reviewer on the phone denying continued stay.
If you want to compare notes on what UBH is actually paying in your market, find our team.
Frequently asked questions
Does a single case agreement with UBH guarantee payment for the full episode of care?
No. An SCA fixes a negotiated rate for a specific patient and authorized level of care. It does not waive medical necessity review. UBH’s UM reviewers can still deny continued stay at concurrent review, the type of decision challenged in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, where Judge Spero found UBH’s internal Level of Care Guidelines inconsistent with generally accepted clinical standards and, in his August 5, 2025 order, allowed fiduciary disloyalty and imprudence claims to proceed. Operators should document every shift to the ASAM Criteria 4th Edition and treat the SCA as a rate contract, not a coverage guarantee.
What did the 2021 DOL settlement with UBH actually require?
The August 2021 settlement in Walsh v. United Behavioral Health required UBH and United Healthcare Insurance Co. To pay $13.6 million to affected participants and beneficiaries and $2,084,249 in penalties, plus corrective actions, following investigations by the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York State Attorney General. United also agreed to cease the violations, improve disclosures to plan participants, and commit to future MHPAEA compliance.
Is the 2024 MHPAEA Final Rule still in effect for behavioral health providers and plans?
The rule was finalized September 9, 2024, but federal enforcement is paused. On May 15, 2025, DOL, HHS, and Treasury announced they will not enforce the 2024 Final Rule, or pursue enforcement based on failure to comply, prior to a final decision in the ERIC litigation plus an additional 18 months. The 2013 final rule, the CAA 2021 statutory amendments, and the NQTL comparative analysis requirement all remain in effect, and state regulators retain their own parity authority.
How much of our net revenue should come from UBH single case agreements?
Our team flags any program where SCAs across all payers exceed 25% of net revenue. That concentration is a covenant risk because SCAs can disappear with a single policy update. The structural context is unfavorable: the 2024 RTI/Bowman analysis of more than 22 million commercially insured lives found patients went out-of-network 3.5 times more often for behavioral health than for medical/surgical care, 10.6 times more often to see a psychologist, and 19.9 times more often for sub-acute behavioral inpatient care.
References
- U.S. Department of Labor, EBSA news release: United Behavioral Health, United Healthcare Insurance Co. Plans to pay $15.6M, take corrective actions (August 12, 2021)
- Statement of U.S. Departments of Labor, HHS, and Treasury regarding enforcement of the MHPAEA 2024 Final Rule (May 15, 2025)
- The Kennedy Forum: Wit v. United Behavioral Health case tracker
- Bloomberg Law: United Behavioral Health Patients’ Coverage Fight Not Dead Yet (August 6, 2025)
- RTI International / Bowman Family Foundation: Behavioral Health Parity – Pervasive Disparities in Access to In-Network Care Continue (April 2024)
- Behavioral Health Business: District Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Wit v. United Behavioral Health (August 11, 2025)
- Zuckerman Spaeder press release on August 5, 2025 Wit ruling