By
Washington
The United States Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in a closely watched case that could determine whether states can require health maintenance organizations to accept independent review determinations regarding medically necessary treatments.
In the case of Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran, the high court will rule on whether state laws requiring HMOs to cover treatments deemed medically necessary by independent reviewers are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The case has drawn sharply different reactions among health care reform advocates and HMO groups. Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a Washington-based reform advocate, says the facts of the case demonstrate "the incredible contradictions of the managed care industry when it comes to patients rights."
Pollack argues that HMOs are trying to block federal legislation that would give patients the right to sue managed care plans. The HMOs say, according to Pollack, that consumers should instead register complaints with independent review boards.
But now, he says, HMOs are challenging the validity of the state laws that created these review boards.
"In so doing, the managed care industry gives duplicity a bad name," Pollack says.
"In effect," he adds, "the managed care industry wants consumer disputes to be handled in such a way that the HMO is the judge, prosecutor and jury."
But in a statement, the American Association of Health Plans says that independent review is not the issue. (AAHP filed an amicus brief in the case along with the Health Insurance Association of America and the American Benefits Council.)
"The court is being asked to review whether ERISA applies in the case or the state law applies," AAHP says. "ERISA is a critical protection for employee benefits, which become less affordable if employers are asked to devote resources to comply with different sets of state rules about them."
The real issue, AAHP says, is fairness.
"AAHP believes that patients should be equally protected regardless of where their companies are based or where they work," the association says.
Specifically, the plaintiff in the case, Debra Moran, was covered by an employer-sponsored health plan, Rush Prudential. Moran contracted a nerve ailment and was initially treated by a Rush-affiliated physician.
When she did not respond to the treatment, Moran consulted a non-network specialist who recommended what is called microreconstructive surgery. Moran asked Rush to approve the surgery but, citing contrary opinions from other physicians, Rush declined.
