HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mariner, W K Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mariner, W K

Liability for managed care decisions: the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the uneven playing field.

W K Mariner

Boston University Schools of Public Health and Medicine, MA 02118-2394, USA.

As managed care organizations expand their programs of quality assurance and physician evaluation, more medical malpractice lawsuits may be brought against managed care organizations on the ground that, like hospitals, they are legally responsible for negligent corporate acts that injure patients. However, the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) shields managed care organizations from liability when they are part of an employee group health plan governed by ERISA. Unlike patients with other types of insurance, patients in ERISA health plans do not have a malpractice remedy for a managed care organization's negligence. A few federal appeals courts recently recognized that ERISA plans can be vicariously liable for their physicians' medical malpractice, but only if the physician is the plan's employee or agent. Yet ERISA still prohibits negligence claims against ERISA health plans for injuries resulting from denial of plan benefits, failure to use qualified physicians, utilization review, or improper plan administration. Current managed care operations do not neatly distinguish between administering benefits and controlling quality of care. Neither should the law. ERISA should be amended to provide employees with the same remedies that patients in non-ERISA plans enjoy.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. K. Mariner Independent External Review of Health Maintenance Organizations' Medical-Necessity Decisions N. Engl. J. Med., December 26, 2002; 347(26): 2178 - 2182. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Rosoff Evidence-Based Medicine And the Law: The Courts Confront Clinical Practice Guidelines Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, April 1, 2001; 26(2): 327 - 368. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. K. Mariner What Recourse? -- Liability for Managed-Care Decisions and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act N. Engl. J. Med., August 24, 2000; 343(8): 592 - 596. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Friedland Managed Care and the Expanding Scope of Primary Care Physicians'Duties: A Proposal to Redefine Explicitly the Standard of Care J. Law Med. Ethics, June 1, 1998; 26(2): 100 - 112. [PDF]

				P. S. Appelbaum Law & Psychiatry: Managed Care's Responsibility for Decisions to Deny Benefits: The ERISA Obstacle Psychiatr Serv, April 1, 1998; 49(4): 461 - 472. [Full Text]

				G. J. Annas A National Bill of Patients' Rights N. Engl. J. Med., March 5, 1998; 338(10): 695 - 700. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. E. Spiegler and A. G. Motulsky Genetic Screening of Adolescents N. Engl. J. Med., August 28, 1997; 337(9): 639 - 640. [Full Text]

				W. K. Mariner State Regulation of Managed Care and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act N. Engl. J. Med., December 26, 1996; 335(26): 1986 - 1991. [Full Text]