FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 347:2178-2182 December 26, 2002 Number 26

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

States may have more freedom to regulate the practices of managed-care organizations than many observers previously believed. In the absence of congressional action on the federal Bipartisan Patient Protection Act,¹ the primary source of patient-protection legislation remains at the state level. Nevertheless, the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974² restricts state regulation of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that serve private employee group health plans. On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, upheld an Illinois state law that requires binding independent external review when an HMO disagrees with the decision . . . [Full Text of this Article]

State Regulation and ERISA

Moran's Dispute with Rush Prudential

The Supreme Court Decision

Implications of the Decision

Conclusions

Source Information

From the Health Law Department, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Chuang, K. H., Aubry, W. M., Dudley, R. A. (2004). Independent Medical Review Of Health Plan Coverage Denials: Early Trends. Health Aff (Millwood) 23: 163-169 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mariner, W. K. (2004). The Supreme Court's Limitation of Managed-Care Liability. NEJM 351: 1347-1352 [Full Text]