22 June 2004
Editorials Respond to Supreme Court Decision on Suing HMOs in State Courts
Two editorials and an opinion piece on Tuesday examined the 9-0 decision issued by the Supreme Court on Monday that said patients cannot file suit against HMOs in state court when they experience injuries as a result of administrative decisions related to treatment (USA Today, 6/22). In the case, which involved a 1997 Texas law, two state residents separately filed suit in state court against their HMOs, Aetna and Cigna Healthcare, over allegations that the companies made decisions related to treatment that resulted in injuries (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/24). However, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 pre-empts state laws that allow patients to file such lawsuits (Tennessean, 6/22). Summaries of the editorials and opinion piece appear below.
Editorials
Tennessean: The Supreme Court decision "leaves most Americans helpless" and "at the mercy" of health insurers "making health care decisions," according to a Tennessean editorial. The editorial states that the decision, which allows ERISA to "trump the state laws" that protect patients, could result in a "denial of care" for a "huge majority of Americans." The editorial concludes, "The ERISA law was written to protect employee pension benefits, not to regulate managed care. This ruling should be all the evidence that Congress should need to put passage of a real patients' bill of rights at the top of its agenda" (Tennessean, 6/22).
USA Today: The Supreme Court decision highlights "Congress' failure" to pass a federal patients' rights bill, according a USA Today editorial. The House and Senate passed separate patients' rights bills in 2001 but could not resolve differences in the legislation, and lawmakers remain "so dug in that they haven't made a serious effort to revive a bill," the editorial states. Although a number of states have enacted patients' rights laws, the Supreme Court decision, in combination with congressional inaction on the issue, "denies patients the right to hold HMOs accountable for their actions," the editorial concludes (USA Today, 6/22).
Opinion Piece
Karen Ignagni, USA Today: The Supreme Court decision moves the patients' rights issue to consumers from trial attorneys, who recently have "distorted [it] into a narrow and counterproductive argument about who gets to sue whom for how much," Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, writes in an USA Today opinion piece. The "runaway lawsuit train" promoted by trial attorneys would have "turned every issue into costly, time-consuming litigation," led to higher health insurance premiums and forced more employers to drop health coverage for employees, Ignagni writes. She adds that Congress should pass "innovative policies that foster public-private collaboration to expand access, restrain costs and enhance quality" in health care, rather than "devise new ways for trial lawyers to plunder the health care system" (Ignagni, USA Today, 6/22).
From Kaiser Family Foundation
close window