•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

Over one hundred million Americans receive their health care benefits under some kind of managed care plan. At the heart of every managed care plan is an emphasis on cost containment. The courts traditionally protected the proprietary economic interests of managed care by holding that claims against managed care organizations and plan directors were preempted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This was done as a means of facilitating a better health care delivery system for Americans and in spite of the number of patients who suffered poor health consequences as a result of decisions by managed care insurers to deny requested benefits. However, by holding that "mixed eligibility decisions" by medical directors are not preempted by ERISA, and that claims against managed care plans for the denial of benefits should proceed under state malpractice law, the United States Supreme Court in Pegram v. Herdrich may have paved the way to reverse that trend. For Pegram's full effect, states will either have to reconsider premising malpractice on the traditional patient-physician relationship, or take a more novel approach like Wisconsin and require that medical directors be licensed physicians who must carry medical malpractice insurance.

First Page

63

Last Page

92

Publication Date

11-1-2003

Department

Other

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.