- ACA Implementation & State Health Reform
- Coverage and Access
- Federal/State Issues
- Medicaid and CHIP
- Population and Public Health
- Providers and Services
- Acute Care
- Assisted Living
- Behavioral Health
- Case Management
- Child Development Services
- Chronic Care Management
- Community Health Centers
- Developmental Screening
- Early Childhood Services
- Emergency Care
- EPSDT
- Family Planning
- Federally Qualified Health Centers
- Home & Community Based Services
- Hospitals
- Long Term Services & Supports
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Mental Health
- Nursing Homes
- Oral Health
- Preventive Care
- Primary Care
- Safety Net Providers
- Quality, Cost, and Health System Performance
- ACOs
- Adverse Event Reporting
- Care Transitions
- Comparative Effectiveness
- Cost Sharing
- Delivery System Reform
- Fraud and Abuse
- Health Care Workforce
- Health Information Technology
- Managed Care
- Medical Homes & Health Homes
- Medical Malpractice
- Patient Safety
- Payment Reform
- Performance Measurement
- Provider Payment Policy
- Quality Oversight
- Specific Populations
- Adolescents
- Childless Adults
- Children
- Children with Special Health Care Needs
- Dual Eligibles
- Elders
- Families
- Low Income People
- Parents
- People with Chronic Conditions
- People with Developmental Disabilities
- Transitional Youth
- Vulnerable Populations
- Young Adults
- Youth
- Youth in Foster Care System
- Youth in Juvenile Justice System
-
Including Employer Financing in State Health Reform Initiatives: Implications of Recent Court Decisions
This Issue Brief discusses implications of federal court cases for state health reform. After outlining the reasons states may want to include employers as a source of health care financing, the paper discusses ERISA’s preemption principles, describes state and local laws that have imposed employer fees, and notes the key findings and conclusions from several court of appeals opinions. Based on principles drawn from these court decisions, the Brief then offers suggestions for how states can include employer assessments in financing health care programs while minimizing grounds for ERISA challenges.January 2009 -
ERISA Implications for State Health Care Access Initiatives: Impact of the Maryland “Fair Share Act” Court Decision
This paper from State Coverage Initiatives and NASHP explores the implications for state health care access initiatives of the federal court decision finding that ERISA preempt’s Maryland’s “Fair Share Act.” ERISA Implications for State Health Care Access Initiatives: Impact of the Maryland “Fair Share Act” Court Decision discusses in detail: • ERISA preemption principles, • The Maryland law and RILA vs. Fiedler court decision, • Implications for state health care access initiatives involving employers in financing, and • Arguments that may be raised to challenge and defend such state programs.November 2006 -
ERISA Update: The Supreme Court Texas Decision and Other Recent Developments
This brief explores the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2004 decision that ERISA preempts the Texas HMO liability law, as well as the decision’s effects on other state health plan liability laws. The brief also examines implications of ERISA preemption for state health insurance regulation, “pay or play” health coverage laws, and premium assistance programs.August 2004 -
Kentucky’s “Any Willing Provider” Law and ERISA: Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision for State Health Insurance Regulation
In a case that helps to define state authority to regulate health insurance, the U.S. Supreme Court held in April 2003 that ERISA (the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) does not preempt Kentucky's Any Willing Provider (AWP) law. This Issue Brief outlines ERISA preemption principles, explains the Supreme Court's opinion, and discusses the ruling’s implications for state laws regulating Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and other health insurers.June 2003 -
Revisiting Pay or Play: How States Could Expand Employer-Based Coverage Within ERISA Constraints
This issue brief is designed to help policy makers design a state pay or play law to withstand an ERISA preemption challenge. The paper briefly outlines why ERISA raises problems for this type of state health policy initiative and how recent Supreme Court decisions have reduced ERISA’s preemptive impacts.May 2002 -
ERISA Preemption Manual for State Health Policy Makers: Update – January 2001
The report continues the dialogue begun in the ERISA Preemption Manual.January 2001 -
ERISA Preemption Primer
The primer provides a basic outline of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and its implications for state health care initiatives.January 2000 -
ERISA Preemption Manual for State Health Policy Makers
The manual offers detailed analysis and source materials related to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and its implications for state health care initiatives. State efforts to expand health care coverage and regulate insurance markets are affected by ERISA’s national standards for employee benefit plans. Though court decisions have narrowed the scope of ERISA, the reach of this federal law remains extensive. Published in conjunction with the Alpha Center and State Coverage Initiatives.
January 2000» -
ERISA
Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in 1974 primarily to address the management of employer pension plans, but it also applies to employer benefits like health insurance. ERISA's provisions sometimes preempt state laws and complicate state efforts to make health care coverage more broadly available. For example, under ERISA, states are prohibited from directly requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for their workers. NASHP's ERISA work hopes to shed light on the possibilities and limitations of state health reform as ERISA legal doctrine evolves. It includes a number of issue briefs and papers, as well as webinars.
