High Court: HMOs Can't Be Sued Under State Law

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that health insurance companies cannot be sued under state law for refusing to pay for doctor-recommended medical care, a decision that could affect millions of patients.

The justices ruled that a 1974 federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, completely preempted such lawsuits brought in state court by patients who seek damages over the denial of appropriate medical care.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=881887

details from another article mention malpractice which seems different-

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday that patients who claim their HMOs wouldn't pay for needed medical care cannot sue for big malpractice damages, an issue at the heart of the long debate over efficiency versus service in managed health care.

The court was unanimous in saying that two HMO patients in Texas cannot pursue big malpractice or negligence cases against their insurers, as they claimed a Texas patient protection law allowed them to do.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-hmos,0,2662100.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[trotsky]

1. Thank GAWD our Supreme Court...

is always standing up for the wealthy and powerful against the poor and weak.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. HMOs are a great place for incompetent doctors to practice.

I hope nobody uses them.

[apnu]

2. wonderful...

The HMO's envision a future where everybody pays them outrageous sums of money, but they won't cover anything.

I've never understood the idea of making the act of saving or prolonging people's lives so expensive. Its as if we live in a world where, if you want to be healthy, it will cost you an arm and a leg. And if you don't then it will literally cost you an arm or a leg.

The Medical/Insurance/Drug company cartel must be brought to heel in this nation!

[Occulus]

3. ah, the results of corporate personhood

If corporations are considered persons under the law, why are they suddenly becoming immune from lawsuits?

[luaneryder]

4. Exactly why Bill Frist

is practicing politics instead of medicine; to protect his family's HMO interests. OOOOOO I can't stand that man and when the words HMO are stated he is the first ugly mug that comes to mind!

[sandnsea]

5. Federal court only

Cost of the benefit only? So somebody doesn't get a $25,000 surgery and they die and the family can only sue for $25,000? How wonderful.

Does anybody know if doctors can be sued for malpractice if an HMO tells them to use one form of treatment and it ends up not working? Do doctors ever end up with the economic liability for HMO screw-ups and is that contributing to malpractice insurance rates?

Health insurance really is one of the worst things that have ever happened in this country, right up there with Bush himself.

[Mississippi Liberal]

6. Not to apologize for the Supreme Court . . .

especially in light of the way they also raped privacy law in the other opinion this morning, but I thought the law was pretty well settled in this area. The problem isn't with the Court's interpretation but with the plain language of the ERISA Act, which was Congress' big valentine to the Insurance Industry back in 1974. If ERISA is applicable, then the case has to go to federal court.

[nolabels]

7. Come on SCOTUS, don't you want to OVER-REACH again

You did such a good job with Bush v Gore

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html
(snip)
If this is correct, then the United States Supreme Court’s decision was not even on the continuum I described above. It was not comparable, for example, to judges’ having an intuition that school segregation is unconstitutional, then groping for a theory that would justify that conclusion. School segregation was a familiar thing, as were the basic principles of the Equal Protection Clause. It is hard to believe that anyone on the Supreme Court really had strong intuitions about (or even more than a bare familiarity with) the provisions of Article II of the Constitution, or Title 3 of the United States Code, that played such a large role in the Bush v Gore litigation. The Equal Protection Clause was the ultimate basis for the decision, but the majority essentially admitted (what was obvious in any event) that it was not basing its conclusion on any general view of what equal protection requires. The decision in Bush v Gore was not dictated by the law in any sense—either the law found through research, or the law as reflected in the kind of intuitive sense that comes from immersion in the legal culture.
(snip)
There is only one circumstance in which the balance of equities might have favored Governor Bush: if a majority of the Supreme Court had already decided how it was going to rule. If there had been any chance that the Vice President would win in the Supreme Court, the stay was indefensible. But if it were a foregone conclusion that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision would be reversed, even the administrative expense of counting might justify a stay. In addition, if five Justices has already made up their minds that they were going to rule in favor of Governor Bush, the stay, however, controversial, ensured that they would not be in the awkward position of reversing an apparent Gore victory. The hypothesis that best explains ththe majority’s decision to grant a stay despite the imbalance in the equities and the questionable nature of Governor Bush’s interest is that the majority knew, when it granted the stay, how the case would come out.
(snip)
The Florida Supreme Court issued the opinion at 4:00 p.m. on December 8. <16> The United States Supreme Court granted the stay at 2:45 p.m. on December 9. <17> In less than 23 hours, five Justices evidently had decided that Governor Bush was sure to prevail, because in view of the harm to the Vice President, the stay could not possibly be justified if there had been any doubt. The Justices reached this decision even though they had little or no prior familiarity with the state law involved, and even though they were acting on the basis of a very hastily prepared stay application and opposition. It is hard to resist the conclusion that they knew all along what they were going to do.
(snip)

Remember they hate us for our Freedoms :crazy:

[havocmom]

8. This means the number of uninsured people in the US just went up to !00%

of the people in the US who thought they were insured because they pay extortion money to an HMO.

Remember back when Hillary was trying to work out a new method to assure people got medical care in America? Remember all those TV adds the insurance companies ran where the worried couple feared rationed health care if the government stepped in? Well folks, you all get rationed health care, only the insurance companies made damned sure
they would be the ones doing the rationing

And in regards to malpractice insurance and tort reform: Isn't it true that states where tort reform (actually, limits on what can be claimed for law suits) has occurred, there was no real savings for physicians on the cost of their malpractice insurance?

Face it, America, the only thing medical insurance insures is the legal mechanisms for corporations to steal your hard earned money under false pretenses.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. Unanimous Decision

Although I haven't yet read the case, I suspect that means the law was pretty clear, and that to accomplish what we want, we would need to change the law (i.e. regain control of Congress).

Sometimes, the law really is what it is. Unanimous decisions these days are very rare, give the more liberal Justices some credit.

DTH

[depakid]

10. The law is clear on ERISA preemption and it's a travesty

Unfortunately, it's up to Congress to change it... and that will only happen if Democrats make it an issue and hold Republicans accountible- something that they have FAILED to do for over 15 years on this issue.

[mulethree]

12. Write it on your calendar, Kerry promised to make it an issue.

So half way thru his first term, look for evidence he's trying to fix this and send him some reminders.

[Mnemosyne]

13. Anyone know what this will do to Medicare and Medicaid?

Here in Pa. they are always pushing those with Medicaid to get some other "great" extra insurance called Ion. Believe it is an hmo type deal.

They will use this to deny care to the old or poor and sick, the older or sicker, the better your chance of NOT receiving the proper care.

An easy way to cut down on SSI,SSD,SS and welfare rolls.


Check out this great thread:

What does the bible say about the poor?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1828846#1828846

Now they are going after the middle class, maybe it will get the attention it deserves finally.