Tag Archives: employer

01.13.10

Making the Exchange Work for Employers

By | Leave a Comment

On January 10, I posted a discussion of why the exchanges as created by the House and Senate bills are unlikely to work for employers. These problems could be fixed by: 1) Allowing the exchanges to calculate the employer’s share of the premium for providing the actuarial value level of insurance coverage and percentage of […]

Posted in Legal Issues ; Tagged: , , , , .

12.23.09

An Interview with Sheila Burke

By | Leave a Comment

Sheila Burke was chief of staff to former Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), the Republican leader during the Clinton health reform effort. The O’Neill Institute’s Lester Feder spoke with her about what makes this time around different. Lester Feder: Compared to your experience in the ’90s, what do you make of the health reform process so […]

Posted in Interview, Legal Issues ; Tagged: , , , .

11.23.09

The Confusing Insurance Categories in the Senate Bill

By | Leave a Comment

Another feature of the Senate bill that compares unfavorably with the House bill is its confusing definitions of insurance coverage. The House bill recognizes one category of private insurance, a “qualified health benefits plan,” which employers are obligated to provide and individuals to buy. This term is used throughout the bill. Only grandfathered plans are […]

Posted in Legal Issues ; Tagged: , , , , , , .

11.17.09

ERISA Tort Preemption and HR 3962, Take Four

By | Leave a Comment

In recent days, Mark Hall, Richard Johnson, and Peter Jacobson have all offered opinions as to how HR 3962, if enacted, would affect ERISA preemption of state tort claims against insurers. Let me offer a fourth opinion. First, remember that ERISA tort liability preemption is based primarily on section 502 of ERISA (29 USC 1132). […]

Posted in Legal Issues ; Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , .

10.31.09

“We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us.”

By | Leave a Comment

Mark makes some excellent points, particularly regarding the limited benefits likely to be derived from removing health insurers’ antitrust exemption. Although health insurers are convenient targets for expressing dissatisfaction with the health care delivery system (indeed, I’ve taken my share of pot-shots), reforming health insurance markets is simply one aspect of a much more intractable […]

Posted in Legal Issues ; Tagged: , , , .

Stay Informed

Signup for our mailing list and stay up to date on the latest happenings at The O’Neill Institute

Or sign up for our RSS Feed

The views reflected in this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law or Georgetown University. This blog is solely informational in nature, and not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed and retained attorney in your state or country.

See the full disclaimer and terms of use.