The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act: greater liability on managed care plans

Mrs. Mayers' article notes the substantial differences that exist between the Senate and the House of Representatives' version of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001. While observing the remedies made available to participants, beneficiaries, or enrollees under both bills, she shows that the Senate bill places greater liability on managed care plans because it favors consumer protection, while the House of Representatives' bill does not. In order to develop an understanding of why an act of this nature is needed, Mrs. Mayers provides a brief historical overview of how managed care entities developed. She also examines the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and proposes amendments to them. She concludes her article by raising an even deeper concern, and that is: what happens to individuals without access to health care coverage.     

Managed care liability and the capitated provider

While there have been no reported cases as yet on the subject of ERISA preemption of claims arising from utilization review decisions by providers, it will unquestionably be a significant issue facing providers that participate in capitated arrangements. If preemption is determined not to be available, providers will be exposed to risks from which health plans are currently shielded. Providers conducting utilization review should be following this issue as it develops, but should also be obtaining insurance for this risk to the extent it is available (e.g., it will not be available for punitive damages). Providers should also consider negotiating provisions in their contracts with health plans to the effect that any utilization review conducted by the provider is on behalf of the health plan and that the provider's utilization review activities will be covered under the health plan's liability insurance.     

State Medicaid managed care enrollment: understanding the political calculus that drives Medicaid managed care reforms

The objective of this article is to understand the political motivations underlying Medicaid managed care reforms by examining the determinants of enrollment of beneficiaries in managed care plans in the fifty states. To highlight the role of the model variables, including measures of the political environment, public interest, and special interests, a distinction is made between capitated and fee-for-service managed care enrollment. The results show that cost containment within the context of the Medicaid program is perceived as strongly favored by voters. Accordingly, the relative cost and tax price of providing Medicaid services are important factors in states' decision to enroll Medicaid beneficiaries in managed care plans, particularly capitated ones. The results also indicate a surprisingly significant influence by labor unions that generally oppose managed care enrollment for fears of lost jobs. The recipient population and provider groups also play an important role in shaping the Medicaid managed care landscape. The influence of variables measuring states' ability and willingness to pay and median voter preferences suggest that, within the context of Medicaid managed care enrollment, the public's interests are being served; however, the results also point toward inequities within the program and implications concerning financing arrangements between states and the federal government.     

Medical liability and health care reform

We examine the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on medical liability and the controversy over whether federal medical reform including a damages cap could make a useful contribution to health care reform. By providing guaranteed access to health care insurance at community rates, the ACA could reduce the problem of under-compensation resulting from damages caps. However, it may also exacerbate the problem of under-claiming in the malpractice system, thereby reducing incentives to invest in loss prevention activities. Shifting losses from liability insurers to health insurers could further undermine the already weak deterrent effect of the medical liability system. Republicans in Congress and physician groups both pushed for the adoption of a federal damages cap as part of health care reform. Physician support for damages caps could be explained by concerns about the insurance cycle and the consequent instability of the market. Our own study presented here suggests that there is greater insurance market stability in states with caps on non-economic damages. Republicans in Congress argued that the enactment of damages caps would reduce aggregate health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office included savings from reduced health care utilization in its estimates of cost savings that would result from the enactment of a federal damages cap. But notwithstanding recent opinions offered by the CBO, it is not clear that caps will significantly reduce health care costs or that any savings will be passed on to consumers. The ACA included funding for state level demonstration projects for promising reforms such as offer and disclosure and health courts, but at this time the benefits of these reforms are also uncertain. There is a need for further studies on these issues.     

Legislative responses to managed care pressures

Changes brought about by the increasing presence of managed care have sparked responses in a number of states. While proponents of managed care contend that it fosters competition and allows the market to influence its nature and functioning, the legislators' responses call into question the notion that managed care will bring greater freedom to insurers and providers and, at the same time, will benefit health care consumers.