ERISA Reform as Health Reform: The Case for an ERISA Preemption Waiver.

If federal health reforms continue to rely on employer-sponsored health care coverage, ERISA preemption reform should be part of the next steps. State-level reform has acquired greater urgency, while the justifications for preempting that source of reform has eroded. This article recommends a statutory waiver for ERISA preemption as a feasible way to adapt to these circumstances. It offers proposed statutory text for reformers inclined to pursue ERISA reform as health reform.

Safe Step Act: does it undermine step therapy?

Drug expenditure in the United States has continued to increase unsustainably; the specialty of dermatology has been particularly affected. Resources are limited - someone has to make decisions about what treatments will be covered and how they will be reimbursed. Step therapy is a cost-control method used by insurers to encourage the use of the most cost-effective treatments before more expensive options are attempted. However, a rigid step therapy policy can be problematic when protocols are out of date, or delay necessary treatment leading to unnecessary suffering, increased morbidity, and overall cost. To address some of these concerns, the proposed Safe Step Act (S. 2546 and H.R. 2279) attempts to create a requirement that insurers provide a transparent, expeditious exceptions process for step therapy protocols. Increased flexibility in this process will allow for the unique circumstances of individual patients and improve access to expensive drugs for special cases. However, this bill may be exploited, further weakening insurers' ability to negotiate on cost. We should be cautious about measures that reduce the effectiveness of this tool, particularly if we, as a society, aim to expand access to basic care to all Americans.

States as Policy Laboratories: The Politics of State-Based Single-Payer Proposals.

Although the focus for most single-payer advocates is in Washington, DC, and on proposals for Medicare for all, there are also efforts in a handful of states to enact a state-based single-payer program. Moreover, the odds of legislative passage are better in a state like New York than at the federal level.Even if enacted, however, state-based single-payer proposals face a distinct set of obstacles, including (1) the need to obtain federal permission (via waivers) to repurpose federal dollars, (2) the federal Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, and (3) the burden of state-only action in an interconnected 50-state economy.The most likely result of the energized single-payer movement will be incremental public insurance expansions at the federal and state levels, including state programs to permit the uninsured to buy into the Medicaid program. Such an outcome is consistent with the most plausible path (incrementalism) to a US version of universal coverage.

The Importance of Preserving Tax-Preferred Status for Employer-Sponsored Health and Retirement Plans.

The future of employer-sponsored health and retirement plans may be at risk. For years, employers have struggled to maintain and pay for these plans despite the increasing compliance and financial burdens imposed by legislative and regulatory action. Now, as Congress begins to lay the foundation for comprehensive tax reform, the need to raise federal revenue may trump the continuation of the tax preferences for employer-provided health and retirement benefits. Recent actions illustrate that the drive for federal revenue may not be sufficiently tempered by the potential negative impact on employers and employees who must bear the brunt of these revenue-induced changes. This article considers the erosion of protections offered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the importance of maintaining the tax treatment of employer-provided benefits.