for health care services, which includes self-funded plans and other plans that are not financed with insurance contracts. The statute specifically applies to “group hospital or health care service contracts], ... individual or group health maintenance organization contracts], ... organized delivery system contracts], ... [and] medical service organization^] created pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 4, Title 10, or preferred provider organization con-traeos].” Thus, the statute includes, within its reach, not only insurance companies and contracts, but employers’ self-funded arrangements for health care services for employees and their dependents and health care service plans. The statute, therefore, fails the “common-sense view” of regulating insurance. See Hayden, 843 F.Supp. at 1434 (<HOLDING>). Even assuming the statute passes the
holding that section 624155 is not a statute which regulates the insurance industry because the statute does not meet the three prong test enunciated in union labor life ins co v pireno 458 us 119 129 102 sct 3002 73 led2d 647 1982 in so holding the court reasoned that although section 624155 is directed toward the insurance industry and applies only to the insurance industry the statute transfers or spreads no policyholder risk and the statute is not an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured see also american intl group inc v siemens bldg techs inc 881 so2d 7 12 fladistctapp2004 holding that section 624155 is not a law  regulating insurance to which mccarranferguson might apply citing anschultz 850 f2d 1467 holding that a missouri state law excepting insurance contracts from an arbitration law regulated the business of insurance because it applied to the processing of disputed claims and had a substantial effect on the insureiinsured relationship holding that a statute relates to erisa plans for the purposes of preemption if it requires the plans to purchase the  benefits specified in the statute when they purchase a certain kind of common insurance policy holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry holding analytically analogous statute failed the commonsense view where although the statute may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement