Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

Argued January 16, 2002
Decided June 20, 2002
Full case name Rush Prudential HMO, Incorporated, Petitioner v. Debra C. Moran, et al.
Citations

536 U.S. 355 (more)

122 S. Ct. 2151; 153 L. Ed. 2d 375; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4644; 70 U.S.L.W. 4600; 27 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2921; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 409
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Souter, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy
Laws applied
Illinois's Health Maintenance Organization Act

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) did not preempt an Illinois medical-review statute.

ERISA envisions a national standard for welfare and pension plans so state laws which "relate to" ERISA plans are preempted under Section 514 of ERISA. However, ERISA contains a "savings" clause which saves state laws which regulate insurance under Section 514(b). The statute at issue in Moran regulated insurance, which is one of the functions HMOs perform. Although HMOs provide healthcare as well as insurance, the statute does not require choosing a single or primary function of an HMO. Congress has long recognized that HMOs are risk-bearing organizations subject to state regulation. Finally, allowing States to regulate the insurance aspects of HMOs will not interfere with the desire of Congress for uniform national standards under ERISA.

See also

References

    This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 2/3/2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.