Law 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 …

Dual Regulation Of Insurance, Christopher French

Journal Articles

Since this country was created, the insurance industry has been principally regulated by the states with infrequent Congressional interventions. As the insurance industry has evolved in recent decades, however, individual states have become unable to adequately regulate some insurers, such as multinational insurers and foreign insurers, because they lack jurisdiction over such entities. Simply having the federal government assume responsibility for regulating insurers will not solve the current regulatory problems, however, because Congress’ past forays into regulating certain areas of insurance generally have yielded poor results. Consequently, this Article makes the novel proposal and argument that, with the creation of …

Erisa And Graham-Cassidy: A Disaster In Waiting For Employee Health Benefits And For Dependents Under 26 On Their Parents’ Plans, Leslie Francis

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Graham Cassidy § 105 would repeal the ACA “employer mandate”. Although its sponsors claim that the bill will give states a great deal of flexibility, it will do nothing to help states ensure that employers provide their employees with decent health insurance; quite the reverse. It will also give employers the freedom to ignore the popular ACA requirement that allows children up to age 26 to receive coverage through their parent’ plans, at least when their parents get health insurance from their employers. Here’s why.

From The Technical To The Personal: Teaching And Learning Health Insurance Regulation And Reform, Allison K. Hoffman, Whitney A. Brown, Lindsay Cutler

All Faculty Scholarship

In the Fall of 2016, I taught Health Law and Policy for the fourth consecutive semester. Over time, one thing has become increasingly clear: the aspect of this course that I work with most closely as a scholar—the regulation of health care financing and insurance, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)—is also the material that I find the most challenging to teach. Every time I reflect on teaching this material, and hear from students about how they learn this material, the thing that stands out is how critical it is that my students understand the profound impact …

The Collective Fiduciary, Lauren R. Roth

Scholarly Works

Can fiduciaries be made to serve public goals? The movement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) towards universal access to health insurance requires us to focus on the fiduciary relationships between large organizations providing access to healthcare and the populations they serve. These relationships have become a collective undertaking instead of a direct, personal relationship.

In this Article, I introduce the concept of the collective fiduciary in response to the shift towards uniform, national goals in the realm of health insurance and healthcare. Only through a collective approach can we hold fiduciaries accountable for the welfare of …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Rochow V. Life Insurance Company Of North America, 136 S. Ct. 480 (2015) (No. 15-163), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2657, Eric Schnapper, Erik W. Scharf, John J. Cooper

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED When a benefit plan, in violation of ERISA, wrongfully denies or delays payment of a benefit, the court may award relief because of the improper delay in the payment of that benefit. The question presented is: Should 'the amount of a remedy based on the improper delay in the payment of a benefit be based on: (1) only the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result of the wrongful delay (the rule in the Sixth Circuit), (2) either the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result …

Overvaluing Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance, Lauren R. Roth

Scholarly Works

Although positive and negative assessments of tying health insurance to employment abound, most scholars and policymakers have acknowledged that our long history in this area predicts our future. What they have largely ignored, however, is the extent to which individual attachment to employment-based insurance is at the root of our inability to make broader health reforms. The attachment (1) harms exchange-based insurance and (2) denies employers the ability to use Health Reimbursement Arrangements (“HRAs”) to subsidize the purchase of insurance by their employees on the exchanges.

This Article advocates reducing or eliminating workers’ overvaluation of their health insurance and increasing …

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,” …

Disclosure To The Rescue: A Conceptual Framework For Retained Asset Accounts, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

RAAs (Retained Asset Accounts) are a life insurance innovation that is likely of small value to most beneficiaries. In many cases, it will make the most financial sense for a beneficiary to write a check to himself for the entire policy proceeds and deposit those funds into an insured bank account. Some beneficiaries, however, may find the RAA device helpful. It is impossible to anticipate the myriad circumstances that beneficiaries may face at the time of an insured's death. As long as insurers provide full and clear disclosure (which ERISA fiduciary standards demand), consumers should remain free to choose an …

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.

The Future Of Employment-Based Health Insurance After The Patient Protection And Affordable Case Act, Kathryn L. Moore

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In the United States, unlike in all other advanced industrial states, health care is financed principally through employment-based health insurance. In 2009, more than 156 million individuals under the age of sixty-five, or 59% of that population, were covered by employment- based health insurance.

On March 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Described as seminal as the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), PPACA fundamentally reforms the American health care system. PPACA, however, does not eliminate the system’s reliance on employment- based health insurance. Instead, it builds on, and arguably …

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.

The "Discretionary Clause" In Erisa Health Insurance Plans, Greg Munro

Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings

This article reviews the issue of the power of state insurance commissioners to regulate the use of the discretionary clause under ERISA. The article questions the remarkable power imbalance between insureds and insurers noting the courts' deference to decisions made under discretionary clauses and the abuse of discretion standard.

Protecting Our Aging Retirees: Converting 401(K) Accounts Into Federally Guaranteed Lifetime Annuities, Lawrence A. Frolik

Articles

America’s retirees are faced with a potential financial disaster. Economic security in retirement has long depended on Social Security, private savings and employer provided retirement plans. While much attention has been paid to the financial problems of Social Security and the lack of private saving for retirement, little attention has been paid to an alarming development in employer provided retirement plans: the likely inability of retirees during the long years of their retirement to successfully manage their retirement funds accumulated in 401(k) and similar accounts. We as a society have set up a funding system for retirement that assumes retirees …

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, …

The Role Of Erisa Preemption In Health Reform: Opportunities And Limits, Peter D. Jacobson

O'Neill Institute Papers

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a federal law regulating the administration of private employer-sponsored benefits including health benefits (i.e., health insurance offered by an employer). In general, since the federal government has exercised its authority to preempt state regulation of the administration of private employer-sponsored health plans, states are blocked from enforcing laws interfering with ERISA.

As many states pursue health care reform experiments, ERISA preemption becomes relevant as a potential limit on the scope and type of reforms states are able to enact. The dominant trend in ERISA litigation has been to preempt state legislation and …

Erisa Misrepresentation And Nondisclosure Claims: Securities Litigation Under The Guise Of Erisa?, Clovis Trevino Bravo

Georgetown Law Student Series

In the wake of recent corporate scandals and dramatic market downturns, many employees whose retirement savings plans were heavily invested in the stock of their employer have seen their account balances substantially depleted. To recover for their losses, plan participants have filed lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) alleging that plan fiduciaries made misrepresentations or failed to disclose material information about the suitability of investing in the company stock. These suits are generally derivative or companion cases to securities class actions based on the same allegations of misrepresentations or nondisclosures. Even though there is a significant overlap …

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.

Doctors, Hmos, Erisa, And The Public Interest After Pegram V. Herdrich, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Nadia Von Magdenko

Scholarly Works

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was enacted in the wake of highly publicized pension disasters in order to protect employee pension rights. Born as a piece of pro-worker legislation, it initially was criticized by business groups as a cause of bureaucratic arteriosclerosis that was worse than the disease of pension failures. Even worse, it prompted many employers to consider dispensing with pension plans altogether rather than struggle with the administrative and financial obligations of ERISA. Business, labor, and the public all complained about the law's complexity. It even became something of a national joke as regulators took …

Recent Case Developments, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Recent case developments in Insurance Law in the years 2000 and 2001.

Recent Case Developments, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Recent case developments in Insurance Law in the years 1999 and 2000.