规范实验程序覆盖范围的州立法方法。

Health care law newsletter Pub Date : 1994-09-01
M E Reagan
{"title":"规范实验程序覆盖范围的州立法方法。","authors":"M E Reagan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As addressed in past issues of the Newsletter, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (\"ERISA\"), 29 U.S.C. sections 1001 et seq., limits the ability of states to regulate the terms and conditions of group health plans. See Newsletters, Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1993, at 6 and 23; Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1993, at 7; Vol. 7, No. 2, February 1992, at 13; Vol. 6, No. 11, November 1991, at 3. Under ERISA, states cannot mandate that self-insured group health plans or employers provide specific types of coverage. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380 (1985). Such mandates are enforceable only as to insurance companies and HMOs, and only to the extent that they are deemed to \"regulate insurance.\" Id. As a result, state legislative attempts to regulate experimental treatment insurance coverage have largely been limited to health plans that are not self insured. Given the inconsistent handling of experimental treatment insurance coverage by both insurance companies and courts across the nation, state legislatures have demonstrated that they are ready to address this matter themselves. However, unless ERISA is amended to afford employees with self-insured plans the same protections as those with insured plans, such state efforts will not be able to resolve the problem for all citizens.</p>","PeriodicalId":79604,"journal":{"name":"Health care law newsletter","volume":"9 9","pages":"13-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"State legislative approaches to regulating coverage for experimental procedures.\",\"authors\":\"M E Reagan\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As addressed in past issues of the Newsletter, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (\\\"ERISA\\\"), 29 U.S.C. sections 1001 et seq., limits the ability of states to regulate the terms and conditions of group health plans. See Newsletters, Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1993, at 6 and 23; Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1993, at 7; Vol. 7, No. 2, February 1992, at 13; Vol. 6, No. 11, November 1991, at 3. Under ERISA, states cannot mandate that self-insured group health plans or employers provide specific types of coverage. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380 (1985). Such mandates are enforceable only as to insurance companies and HMOs, and only to the extent that they are deemed to \\\"regulate insurance.\\\" Id. As a result, state legislative attempts to regulate experimental treatment insurance coverage have largely been limited to health plans that are not self insured. Given the inconsistent handling of experimental treatment insurance coverage by both insurance companies and courts across the nation, state legislatures have demonstrated that they are ready to address this matter themselves. However, unless ERISA is amended to afford employees with self-insured plans the same protections as those with insured plans, such state efforts will not be able to resolve the problem for all citizens.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health care law newsletter\",\"volume\":\"9 9\",\"pages\":\"13-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health care law newsletter\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health care law newsletter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如在过去的时事通讯中所述,《就业退休收入保障法》(“ERISA”),29 U.S.C.第1001条等。,限制了各州规范团体健康计划条款和条件的能力。见《通讯》第8卷第6期,1993年6月,第6和23页;第8卷,第1期,1993年1月,第7页;第7卷第2期,1992年2月,第13页;第6卷第11期,1991年11月,第3页。根据ERISA,各州不能强制要求自我保险的团体健康计划或雇主提供特定类型的保险。大都会人寿保险公司。公司诉马萨诸塞州,471 U.S. 724, 105 s.c.。2380(1985)。这样的命令只对保险公司和hmo是可执行的,并且只在他们被认为是“规范保险”的程度上。Id。因此,各州立法机构试图规范实验性治疗保险覆盖范围的努力,在很大程度上仅限于非自我保险的健康计划。鉴于全国各地保险公司和法院对实验性治疗保险承保范围的处理不一致,州立法机构已经表明,他们准备自己解决这个问题。然而,除非对ERISA进行修订,使拥有自我保险计划的雇员获得与有保险计划的雇员相同的保护,否则州政府的努力将无法解决所有公民的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
State legislative approaches to regulating coverage for experimental procedures.

As addressed in past issues of the Newsletter, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. sections 1001 et seq., limits the ability of states to regulate the terms and conditions of group health plans. See Newsletters, Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1993, at 6 and 23; Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1993, at 7; Vol. 7, No. 2, February 1992, at 13; Vol. 6, No. 11, November 1991, at 3. Under ERISA, states cannot mandate that self-insured group health plans or employers provide specific types of coverage. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380 (1985). Such mandates are enforceable only as to insurance companies and HMOs, and only to the extent that they are deemed to "regulate insurance." Id. As a result, state legislative attempts to regulate experimental treatment insurance coverage have largely been limited to health plans that are not self insured. Given the inconsistent handling of experimental treatment insurance coverage by both insurance companies and courts across the nation, state legislatures have demonstrated that they are ready to address this matter themselves. However, unless ERISA is amended to afford employees with self-insured plans the same protections as those with insured plans, such state efforts will not be able to resolve the problem for all citizens.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
State legislative approaches to regulating the use of genetic information. State Medicaid reform under Section 1115 demonstration authority. Arnett v. Dal Cielo: peer review confidentiality threatened by medical board investigational subpoenas. Commissioner v. Schleier: back to the drawing board on the taxation of employment dispute recoveries. Managed care liability and the capitated provider.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1