Expanded managed care liability: what impact on employer coverage?
نویسندگان
چکیده
Policymakers are considering legislative changes that would increase managed care organizations' exposure to civil liability for withholding coverage or failing to deliver needed care. Using a combination of empirical information and theoretical analysis, we assess the likely responses of health plans and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan sponsors to an expansion of liability, and we evaluate the policy impact of those moves. We conclude that the direct costs of liability are uncertain but that the prospect of litigation may have other important effects on coverage decision making, information exchange, risk contracting, and the extent of employers' involvement in health coverage.
منابع مشابه
Expanded managed care liability : what impact on
Policymakers are considering legislative changes that would increase managed care organizations’ exposure to civil liability for withholding coverage or failing to deliver needed care. Using a combination of empirical information and theoretical analysis, we assess the likely responses of health plans and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan sponsors to an expansion of liability...
متن کاملTort Liability: a Minefield for Managed Care?
The restructuring of health insurance contracts and health care delivery systems under managed care is the result of competitive attempts to reduce the inefficiencies that developed in medical markets under traditional indemnity insurance. Liability rules that continue to apply norms of customary care threaten to undermine these potential efficiency gains. Liability rules under managed care sho...
متن کاملThe Supreme Court's limitation of managed-care liability.
This article summarizes and critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, which limited managed care organizations' liability for negligent decisions about the care of patients in private employer-sponsored health plans governed by ERISA. It contrasts the Court's dichotomous view of health benefit plans, in which insurers administer contracts and treating physician...
متن کاملWielding the wand without facing the music: allowing utilization review physicians to trump doctors' orders, but protecting them from legal risk ordinarily attached to the medical degree.
This Note identifies a discrepancy in the law governing the decisionmaking that directs patient care. Seeking treatment that a third party will pay for, a patient needs not only a physician-prescribed course of treatment but also an insurer's verification that the cost is medically necessary or otherwise covered by the patient's plan. Both of these decisions directly impact the ultimate care de...
متن کاملPegram's significance for managed health care.
On June 12, 2000, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Souter, the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, held in Pegram v. Herdrich that “mixed eligibility” decisions made by HMO physicians are not fiduciary decisions under ERISA. In so ruling, the Court upheld the concept that the reasonable sharing of financial risk with HMO networ...
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 18 6 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1999