Rush_Prudential_HMO,_Inc._v._Moran

<i>Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran</i>

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

2002 United States Supreme Court case

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)[1] did not preempt an Illinois medical-review statute.[2]

Quick Facts Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, Argued January 16, 2002 Decided June 20, 2002 ...

ERISA envisions a national standard for welfare and pension plans so state laws which "relate to" ERISA plans are preempted under Section 514 of ERISA. However, ERISA contains a "savings" clause which saves state laws which regulate insurance under Section 514(b). The statute at issue in Moran regulated insurance, which is one of the functions HMOs perform. Although HMOs provide healthcare as well as insurance, the statute does not require choosing a single or primary function of an HMO. Congress has long recognized that HMOs are risk-bearing organizations subject to state regulation. Finally, allowing States to regulate the insurance aspects of HMOs will not interfere with the desire of Congress for uniform national standards under ERISA.

See also

References

  1. [1]
    29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
  2. [2]
    Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002).


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Rush_Prudential_HMO,_Inc._v._Moran, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.