Comments on “The Assault on Managed Care: Vicarious Liability, ERISA Preemption, and Class Actions”
نویسندگان
چکیده
Managed care organizations (MCOs), as insurance entities, should be liable under contract for inappropriate denial of coverage, whereas treatment errors should be conventional malpractice claims against physicians. Most MCOs are loose networks of independent practices that lack the requisite information or technology to improve care. Holding such MCOs vicariously liable for their physicians’ negligence would lead to increased “false positive” claims and distort deterrence. Integrated MCOs already contractually assume responsibility for the negligence of their salaried physicians, which appears to be efficient. Maintaining the distinction between medical error and coverage denial requires that treatment decisions be evaluated relative to a standard of care that recognizes common MCO control strategies. Class actions against MCOs are based on the false premise that MCO cost control strategies harm patients. Charges that enrollees were led to expect more coverage than they actually received imply, if true, that HMOs should have realized supernormal profits, for which there is
منابع مشابه
HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS ERISA Litigation and Physician Autonomy
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECUrity Act (ERISA) looms like a colossus over the managed care environment. Originally enacted to regulate employer-sponsored pension plans, the statute also covers health care benefits established by self-insured employers (with few exceptions, such as for governmental employees). According to recent Department of Labor estimates, ERISA applies to appro...
متن کاملWill 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 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 کاملThe Supreme Court limits lawsuits against managed care organizations.
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...
متن کاملThe emerging convergence of the doctrine of informed consent and judicial reinterpretation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The economics of health-care delivery are causing an increased consolidation via proliferation of large integrated delivery systems. [FN1] As this consolidation continues, two trends are emerging in health law that apparently will yield a form of greater liability and accountability for organized providers of health care, especially managed care organizations (MCOs).[FN2] The first trend arises...
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:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2017