The Supreme Court limits lawsuits against managed care organizations.
نویسنده
چکیده
In Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, the United States Supreme Court revisited the question of whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) precludes state lawsuits against ERISA plans. The Court held that ERISA preempts damage actions brought against managed care organizations under the Texas Health Care Liability Act because ERISA itself provides the exclusive remedy for challenging ERISA plans' coverage decisions. The Court suggested, however, that health plans might be liable for treatment decisions made by employed physicians. It also volleyed back to Congress the question of whether ERISA beneficiaries should have any remedy for damages caused by coverage decisions.
منابع مشابه
Will the Supreme Court finally eliminate ERISA preemption?
David Trueman's article reviews the history of ERISA preemption by analyzing seminal Supreme Court cases and predicts the future of ERISA preemption in his analysis of recent federal case law. Traditionally, the ability to hold a managed care entity responsible for its actions has been hampered by a strict interpretation of the preemption clauses of ERISA but as the Supreme Court's jurisprudenc...
متن کاملProving Causation With Epidemiological Evidence in Tobacco Lawsuits
Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law. Proving...
متن کاملQuasi-Judicial Authorities Investigating Violations in the Provision of Health Care Services
Patients are the main consumers of health care services and among the most vulnerable social classes. They are in a special situation because of the physical and emotional stresses caused by the illness as well as the financial burden of medical services. In contrast, the advancement, diversification and specialization of health care services have led patients to face a group called "health car...
متن کاملCourts and health care rationing: the case of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court.
The recognition that access to health care is a constitutional right in Brazil has resulted in a situation in which citizens denied treatments by the public health care system have brought lawsuits against health authorities, claiming that their right to health was violated. This litigation forces the courts to decide between a patient-centred and a population-centred approach to public health ...
متن کاملManaged care's Crimea: medical necessity, therapeutic benefit, and the goals of administrative process in health insurance.
Reading news headlines, one would think that the managed care wars were over. By the end of 2001, forty-two states had enacted laws subjecting coverage determinations by managed care companies to “external” or “independent” review, with twenty-seven states adopting them in the preceding three years. In June 2002, the Supreme Court held that the federal ERISA statute did not preempt an Illinois ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Health affairs
دوره Suppl Web Exclusives شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2004