Editorials Respond to Supreme Court Decision To Limit Lawsuits Against HMOs in State Courts

Several newspaper editorials on Wednesday examined the unanimous decision issued by the Supreme Court on Monday that said patients cannot file suit against HMOs in state court when they experience injuries as a result of administrative decisions related to treatment. In the case, which involved a 1997 Texas law, two state residents separately filed suit in state court against their HMOs, Aetna and Cigna Healthcare, over allegations that the companies made decisions related to treatment that resulted in injuries. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempts state laws that allow patients to file such lawsuits (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 6/22). Summaries of the editorials appear below.

• Denver Post: The United States should adopt "a uniform national law covering health insurers that operate in multiple states," the editorial states. The editorial adds, "HMOs clearly have a role to play in providing health care to Americans. If a realistic national regulatory system replaces the crazy quilt of conflicting state laws governing health providers, that's all to the good" (Denver Post, 6/23).
  
  
• Des Moines Register: The Supreme Court decision "reaffirmed what was already known: There are no patients' rights in this country when it comes to disputes with health insurance companies," a Des Moines Register editorial states. The editorial concludes that although a patients' bill of rights will not address the issue of the uninsured, it would "guarantee that insurance companies, like other industries, be held accountable for their decisions, especially when those decisions could be harmful to patients' health" (Des Moines Register, 6/23).
  
  
• Investor's Business Daily: Following the Supreme Court decision, members of Congress must decide whether to take no action, "pass some version of the old 'patients' bill of rights'" or "take a fresh look at the problem" -- "the best choice," an Investor's Business Daily editorial states. Lawmakers should take the opportunity "to start from scratch and figure out what's really wrong with managed care" by examining not only HMOs, but also the insurance and litigation systems, the editorial adds (Investor's Business Daily, 6/23).
  
  
• Los Angeles Times: The Supreme Court ruling does not suggest a constitutional prohibition on suing HMOs, but rather "clarifie[s] that a law passed three decades ago by Congress, called ERISA, bars states from authorizing such litigation," a Times editorial states. To address underlying issues with ERISA, members of Congress and the presidential candidates "need to first acknowledge that all Americans should have access to a basic, core package of medically necessary benefits," such as those defined by Medicare and Medicaid. The editorial concludes that Congress should consider regulatory alternatives such as independent medical review boards, stating that suing HMOs would do "nothing to help patients get what they need most: timely, competent, medically necessary care" (Los Angeles Times, 6/23).
  
  
• Miami Herald: Members of Congress should close a gap in patients' ability to sue for damages, which was illustrated by the Supreme Court decision, by adopting legislation that would give patients greater protection against an HMO's "harmful misjudgments," a Herald editorial states. According to the editorial, "Lawmakers should take up the matter at their first opportunity. HMOs that offer medical advice should take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions" (Miami Herald, 6/23).
  
  
• New York Times: The Supreme Court justices "see[m] to have made the right legal judgment this week," leaving "no room for doubt that [ERISA] preempts any effort by the states to give patients the right to sue for damages," a Times editorial states. However, the decision is "bad news" for patients harmed by an insurers' refusal to pay. "With the state courts now closed off to aggrieved managed care patients, the only real remedy may lie with Congress" to overcome the deadlock over a patients' bill of rights, the editorial concludes (New York Times, 6/23).
  
  
• Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: Although "legislative remedy is clearly needed ... lawmakers should not be in the business of blocking states from broadening patient's rights," a Democrat and Chronicle editorial states. The editorial adds, "Congress has not only failed to pass a national patients' bill of rights in recent years but has kept restrictive laws on the books that keep states from doing what Washington lawmakers have been unable to do" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 6/23).
  
  
• St. Petersburg Times: The Supreme Court decision "puts the responsibility to fix this intolerable situation where it belongs: on Congress"; however, U.S. residents "could be waiting a long time for Congress to act," a Times editorial states. The editorial adds that "even the highest court in the land can't force Congress to step up to its responsibility, or the president to provide leadership, on this vital issue" (St. Petersburg Times, 6/23).
  
  
• Salt Lake Tribune: Congress should approve legislation that "would allow lawsuits but establish a cap on punitive damages and require that the patient exhaust other remedies provided by the insurance plan before going to court," according to a Tribune editorial. "The law should also allow employee medical plans to limit coverage and specifically exempt some treatments from coverage to make them affordable," the editorial adds (Salt Lake Tribune, 6/23).
  
  
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: It is "reasonable to lament the results" of the Supreme Court ruling, "[b]ut it's unreasonable to castigate the justices for fomenting bad public policy," a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial says. Supreme Court justices "met their constitutional obligation" to interpret federal laws as written, and "[t]hose who respect the judicial process ... are obliged to applaud the route to these decisions, even if lamenting their results," the editorial concludes (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/23).