Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 354
Filter
2.
J Law Med Ethics ; 48(3): 450-461, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33021183

ABSTRACT

If federal health reforms continue to rely on employer-sponsored health care coverage, ERISA preemption reform should be part of the next steps. State-level reform has acquired greater urgency, while the justifications for preempting that source of reform has eroded. This article recommends a statutory waiver for ERISA preemption as a feasible way to adapt to these circumstances. It offers proposed statutory text for reformers inclined to pursue ERISA reform as health reform.


Subject(s)
Employee Retirement Income Security Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Benefit Plans, Employee/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/economics , Employee Retirement Income Security Act/history , Federal Government , History, 20th Century , Pensions , State Government , United States
3.
Dermatol Online J ; 26(4)2020 Apr 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32621676

ABSTRACT

Drug expenditure in the United States has continued to increase unsustainably; the specialty of dermatology has been particularly affected. Resources are limited - someone has to make decisions about what treatments will be covered and how they will be reimbursed. Step therapy is a cost-control method used by insurers to encourage the use of the most cost-effective treatments before more expensive options are attempted. However, a rigid step therapy policy can be problematic when protocols are out of date, or delay necessary treatment leading to unnecessary suffering, increased morbidity, and overall cost. To address some of these concerns, the proposed Safe Step Act (S. 2546 and H.R. 2279) attempts to create a requirement that insurers provide a transparent, expeditious exceptions process for step therapy protocols. Increased flexibility in this process will allow for the unique circumstances of individual patients and improve access to expensive drugs for special cases. However, this bill may be exploited, further weakening insurers' ability to negotiate on cost. We should be cautious about measures that reduce the effectiveness of this tool, particularly if we, as a society, aim to expand access to basic care to all Americans.


Subject(s)
Cost Control , Health Care Costs , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Cost Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Employee Retirement Income Security Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Expenditures , Insurance, Health/economics , United States
4.
Am J Public Health ; 109(11): 1511-1514, 2019 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31536399

ABSTRACT

Although the focus for most single-payer advocates is in Washington, DC, and on proposals for Medicare for all, there are also efforts in a handful of states to enact a state-based single-payer program. Moreover, the odds of legislative passage are better in a state like New York than at the federal level.Even if enacted, however, state-based single-payer proposals face a distinct set of obstacles, including (1) the need to obtain federal permission (via waivers) to repurpose federal dollars, (2) the federal Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, and (3) the burden of state-only action in an interconnected 50-state economy.The most likely result of the energized single-payer movement will be incremental public insurance expansions at the federal and state levels, including state programs to permit the uninsured to buy into the Medicaid program. Such an outcome is consistent with the most plausible path (incrementalism) to a US version of universal coverage.


Subject(s)
Politics , Single-Payer System/organization & administration , State Government , Employee Retirement Income Security Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Single-Payer System/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
20.
Tort Trial Insur Pract Law J ; 50(2): 401-38, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30024132

ABSTRACT

This year's article covers key recent developments in life, health, and disability insurance law, including Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage provisions and on the enforceability of legal actions limitations period provisions in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan documents; an alarming (but potentially short-lived) expansion of restitution as a form of "equitable relief" under ERISA; the latest battles in the stranger originated life insurance (STOLI) wars; and perennial issues arising out of disability and accident insurance cases.


Subject(s)
Employee Retirement Income Security Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Disability/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Life/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Alcoholic Intoxication/mortality , Conflict of Interest , Contraception , Disabled Persons/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Overdose/mortality , Employment/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Seizures/mortality , Social Security/legislation & jurisprudence , Taxes/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...