Health Law and Policy Commons^™

Pro-Choice Plans, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Constitution may no longer protect abortion, but a surprising federal statute does. That statute is called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), and it has long been one of the most powerful preemptive statutes in the entire United States Code. ERISA regulates “employee benefit plans,” which are the vehicle by which approximately 155 million people receive their health insurance. Plans are thus a major private payer for health benefits—and therefore abortions. While many post-Dobbs anti-abortion laws directly bar abortion by making either the receipt or provision of …

Federalism, Erisa, And State Single-Payer Health Care, Erin C. Fuse Brown, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

While federal health reform sputters, states have begun to pursue their own transformative strategies for achieving universal coverage, the most ambitious of which are state-based single-payer plans. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, legislators in twenty-one states have proposed sixty-six unique bills to establish single-payer health care systems. This paper systematically surveys those state legislative efforts and exposes the federalism trap that threatens to derail them: ERISA's preemption of state regulation relating to employer-sponsored health insurance. ERISA's expansive preemption provision creates a narrow, risky path for state regulation to capture the employer health care expenditures crucial …

Regulating Employment-Based Anything, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

Benefit regulation has been called “the most consequential subject to which no one pays enough attention.” It exhausts judges, intimidates legislators, and scares off theorists. That need not be so. Reality is less complicated than advertised.

Governments often consider intervention if markets fail to make some socially desirable Good X — such as education, health care, home mortgages, or pensions, for example — sufficiently available. One obvious fix is for the government to provide the good itself. A less obvious intervention is for the government to regulate employment-based (EB) arrangements that provide Good X as a benefit to employees and …

Scaling Cost-Sharing To Wages: How Employers Can Reduce Health Spending And Provide Greater Economic Security, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

In the employer-sponsored insurance market that covers most Americans many workers are “underinsured.” The evidence shows onerous out-of-pocket payments causing them to forgo needed care, miss work, and fall into bankruptcies and foreclosures. Nonetheless, many higher-paid workers are “overinsured”: the evidence shows that in this domain, surplus insurance stimulates spending and price inflation without improving health. Employers can solve these problems together by scaling cost-sharing to wages. This reform would make insurance better protect against risk and guarantee access to care, while maintaining or even reducing insurance premiums.

Yet, there are legal obstacles to scaled cost-sharing. The group-based nature of …

The Affordable Care Act, Remedy, And Litigation Reform, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ACA”) rewrote the law of private health insurance. How the ACA rewrote the law of civil remedies, however, is — to date — a question largely unexamined by scholars. Courts everywhere, including the United States Supreme Court, will soon confront this important issue.

This Article offers a foundational treatment of the ACA on remedy. It predicts a series of flashpoints over which litigation reform battles will be fought. It identifies several themes that will animate those conflicts and trigger others. It explains how judicial construction of the statute’s functional predecessor, the …

Enough About The Constitution: How States Can Regulate Health Insurance Under The Aca, Brendan S. Maher, Radha A. Pathak

Faculty Scholarship

Last term, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a landmark decision. It is a forceful reminder that America’s oldest question — how power should be shared between federal and state sovereigns — retains powerful political salience. Critics have reflexively attacked the decision as an assault on states’ rights, while supporters have celebrated the result. Regrettably, insufficient attention has been paid to how, in actuality, health care regulatory authority has been and will be divided between federal and state governments. In this Article, we fill that gap. To do so, we apply “federalism-in-fact,” …

Equality Standards For Health Insurance Coverage: Will The Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act End The Discrimination?, Ellen M. Weber

Faculty Scholarship

Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in 2008 to end discriminatory health insurance coverage for persons with mental health and substance use disorders in large employer health plans. Adopting a comprehensive regulatory approach akin to other civil rights laws, the Parity Act requires “equity” in all plan features, including cost-sharing, durational limits and, most critically, the plan management practices that are used to deny many families medically necessary behavioral health care. Beginning in 2014, all health plans regulated by the Affordable Care Act must also comply with parity standards, effectively ending the second-class insurance status of …

The Benefits Of Opt-In Federalism, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) is a controversial and historic statute that mandates people make insurance bargains. Unacknowledged is an innovative mechanism ACA uses to select the law that governs those bargains: opt-in federalism.

Opt-in federalism – in which individuals choose between federal and state rules – is a promising theoretical means to make and choose law. This Article explains why, and concludes that the appeal of opt-in federalism is independent of ACA. Whatever the statute’s constitutional fate, future policymakers should consider opt-in federalist approaches to answer fundamental but exceedingly difficult questions of health and retirement law.

Erisa & Uncertainty, Brendan S. Maher, Peter K. Stris

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States, retirement income and health insurance are largely provided through private promises made incident to employment. These “benefit promises” are governed by a statute called ERISA, which many healthcare and pension scholars argue is the cause of fundamental problems with our nation’s health and retirement policy. Inevitably, however, they advance narrowly tailored proposals to amend the statute. This occurs because of the widely-held view that reform should leave undisturbed the underlying core of the statute. This Article develops a theory of ERISA designed to illustrate the unavoidable need for structural reform.

Creating A Paternalistic Market For Legal Rules Affecting The Benefit Promise, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

Notwithstanding the fact that ERISA was enacted to protect employee benefits, courts have narrowly construed the relief available when benefits are denied, out of concern that a stronger remedy would be too costly for the system to bear. Judges, I argue, are ill-equipped to make this policy judgment. Instead, a regulated, subsidized, paternalistic market should be created to permit the benefit players themselves to choose and price the strength of the remedy they desire. This is a superior means to reach the right level of remedial strength for the most players. To protect against undesirably weak remedial options being selected, …

Erisa, Agency Costs, And The Future Of Health Care In The United States, John Bronsteen, Brendan S. Maher, Peter K. Stris

Faculty Scholarship

Because so many Americans receive health insurance through their employers, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plays a dominant role in the delivery of healthcare in the United States. The ERISA system enables employers and insurers to save money by providing inadequate healthcare to employees, thereby creating incentives for these agents to act contrary to the interests of their principals. Such agency costs play a significant role in the current healthcare crisis and require attention when considering reform. We evaluate the two major healthcare reform movements by exploring the extent to which each reduces agency costs. We …

The Supreme Court's Limitation Of Managed-Care Liability, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

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 physicians make medical judgments, with the more complicated relationships that affect decisions about both coverage and treatment.

What Recourse?—Liability For Managed Care Decisions And The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

Should managed-care organizations be accountable to patients injured by the company's negligence or wrongdoing? The general rule is that all organizations, including managed-care organizations, are legally liable for causing personal injury as a result of their own negligence or the negligence of their employees or agents.1-4 However, as most observers of the U.S. health care system know by now, there is an exception to this basic legal rule of accountability. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has been interpreted to grant health benefit plans provided by employers or unions (and the managed-care organizations that sell or …

State Regulation Of Managed Care And The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)1 is the federal law that governs employee-benefit plans offered by private employers and unions. ERISA has long hindered state efforts to expand access to health care, because it prohibits states from requiring all employers to offer benefits to their employees.2 States have shifted their attention from seeking universal insurance coverage for health care to regulating the benefits of people who already have health insurance. Reports describing how some managed-care organizations limit the care provided to their enrollees have prompted a rash of legislative efforts intended to protect patients from receiving …

Working And Poor: The Increasingly Popular Practice Of Excluding Disabled Employees From Health Care Coverage, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

One might think, since passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),' that the employment story for disabled employees or would-be disabled employees was cheerful, or at least improving. This may be true in so far as obtaining and retaining employment is concerned;' however, the ADA, because it permits employers and third-party insurers to continue to utilize traditional risk management techniques, has resulted in reduced or (in some cases) non-existent employee benefits for the disabled. At the same time, more and more employers are opting to self-insure under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),3 in …