About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


24 DePaul J. Health Care L. [1] (2023)

handle is hein.journals/dephcl24 and id is 1 raw text is: I. Introduction The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)1 was enacted to protect the interests of pensioners by providing minimum federal standards for private companies if they choose to create employee benefits plans, whether they be pension plans or health benefit plans for their employees.2 ERISA has had a largely positive impact on employment benefits for workers; however, its preemption clause has created dysfunction in the realm of state health care reform. Section 514(d) of ERISA states: the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.3 The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause very broadly and to apply to any state regulation that may deviate from national uniformity rules for employee benefit programs.4 Unfortunately, this has unintended consequences on state health care reform efforts as most health insurance is linked to private employee benefit plans.5 As a result of ERISA's preemption clause, it is harder for states to implement reform regarding health care, and, in turn, makes states more reliant on the federal government for change. Not only is this unrealistic because of the current gridlock in Congress6, but it also goes against the principals of federalism. Justice Brandeis famously stated, a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.7 Under the current interpretation of ERISA's preemption clause, 1 29 U.S.C.A. ch. 18 § 1001 et seq (West). 2 See Ledolter, Johannes, and Mark L. Power, A Study of ERISA 's Impact on Private Retirement Plan Growth, 51 J. Risk and Insurance 226, 225-43 (1984). 3 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144(d) (West). 4 See generally Erin C. Fuse & Elizabeth Y. McCuskey, Federalism, ERISA, and State Single-Payer Healthcare, 168 U. Penn. L. Rev. 398, 419-65 (2020). 5 See Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 577 U.S. 312, 320 (2016). 6 The filibuster rule requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation on top of today's hyperpolarized political climate has made health care reform on the federal level next to impossible. 7 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 52 S. Ct. 371 (1932).