The impact of state managed care liability statutes

The political management of managed care: explaining variations in state health maintenance organization regulations

In the 1990s, strong incentives for managed care organizations to control costs, once regarded as a fortuitous confluence of interests, came to be seen as antithetical to consumers' interests in quality of care. In response to this change in political climate, many states have greatly increased their regulatory control of managed care organizations since the mid-1990s. This activity is surprising in an era when public policy on health care issues is usually described as frozen, gridlocked, and/or stalemated as a result of intense activity on the part of organized interests. We take advantage of the variation in state regulations of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to discover why some governments are able to address policy problems that are often perceived as intractable in a political if not in a true policy sense. From the history of HMOs, the backlash against managed care, and state responses to that backlash, we first extract a number of hypotheses about state regulatory activity. We then test these hypotheses with data on regulatory adoptions by states during the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Last, we discuss the findings with special attention to the role of politics in health care.

Health plan liability and ERISA: the expanding scope of state legislation

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) supersedes state laws as they relate to employer-based health care plans. Thus, cases brought under ERISA are heard in federal courts. We examined the intent, scope, and impact of recent laws passed in 10 states attempting to expand the legal rights of health plan enrollees to sue their plans. In June 2004, the US Supreme Court ruled that state-law causes of action brought under the Texas Health Care Liability Act involving coverage decisions by Aetna Health Inc and CIGNA Health Care of Texas were preempted by ERISA. The full implications of this decision are not evident at present.