Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:04:53.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Purchase of Insurance across State Lines in the Individual Market

Executive Summary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Stephanie Kanwit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper analyzes the legal issues associated with the leading and much-debated proposals that aim to revitalize state regulatory competition and allow individuals to purchase insurance across state lines (PASL). These proposals seek to reverse decades-old principles of state preeminence in the regulation of individual health insurance and instead create “jurisdictional competition” in the individual market by allowing an insurer to choose the state under whose law it wishes to be regulated, subject to certain consumer protections. Advocates say this type of jurisdictional competition would reform perceived problems in the individual market and lower the costs of individual health insurance by imposing the regulatory authority of only the insurer’s selected “home” state.

Type
JLME Supplement
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue S2 , Fall 2009 , pp. 150 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Health08.org, Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008 Presidential Candidate Health Care Proposals: Side-by-Side Summary, available at <http://pdf.kff.org/health08/compare_5.pdf> (last visited January 9, 2009).+(last+visited+January+9,+2009).>Google Scholar
Health Care Choice Act of 2005, H.R. 2355, 109th Cong. (2005); Health Care Choice Act of 2007, H.R. 4460, 110th Cong. (2007). Hereafter both bills are referred to as “the Choice Act.” The bills were also introduced in companion form by Senator DeMint (R-SC) as S. 1015, 109th Cong. (2005); and S. 2477, 110th Cong. (2007).Google Scholar
Other proposed regulatory ideas include the concept of Optional Federal Chartering (OFC), which would keep state regulation in place but allow an insurer to choose to be regulated under a single federal charter instead of on a state-by-state basis. An example is the National Insurance Act of 2007, S. 40, 110th Cong. (2007), introduced by Sens. Sununu (R-NH) and Johnson (D-SD). The bill was also introduced in companion form H.R.3200, 110th Cong. (2007) by Reps. Bean (D-IL) and Royce (R-CA). To date, the major OFC proposals have not included medical insurance.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Matthews, M., Opinion, “McCain Is Right On Interstate Health Insurance,” Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2008, available at <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html> (last visited June 29, 2009); Herbert, B., “McCain's Radical Agenda,” New York Times, September 16, 2008, at A29, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html> (last visited June 29, 2009); see also, The Health Care Choice Act: Hearing on H.R. 2335 before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 109th Cong. (2005) (witness testimony), available at <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:22986.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009). (last visited June 29, 2009); see also, The Health Care Choice Act: Hearing on H.R. 2335 before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 109th Cong. (2005) (witness testimony), available at (last visited June 29, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See,+e.g.,+Matthews,+M.,+Opinion,+“McCain+Is+Right+On+Interstate+Health+Insurance,”+Wall+Street+Journal,+October+1,+2008,+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009);+Herbert,+B.,+“McCain's+Radical+Agenda,”+New+York+Times,+September+16,+2008,+at+A29,+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009);+see+also,+The+Health+Care+Choice+Act:+Hearing+on+H.R.+2335+before+the+Subcommittee+on+Health+of+the+House+Committee+on+Energy+and+Commerce,+109th+Cong.+(2005)+(witness+testimony),+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1015 (2008).Google Scholar
See Survey, Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2007, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau (2008), available at <http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/health/h01_001.htm> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
See U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, August 2008, at 19, available at <http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, Health Care Choice Act of 2005, H.R. 2355, September 12, 2005, available at <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/66xx/doc6639/hr2355.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Survey, “Individual Health Insurance 2006–2007: A Comprehensive Survey of Premiums, Availability, and Benefits,” America's Health Insurance Plans Center for Policy and Research, December 2007, at 8–9, available at <www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Individual_Market_Survey_December_2007.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009). (last visited June 29, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+Survey,+“Individual+Health+Insurance+2006–2007:+A+Comprehensive+Survey+of+Premiums,+Availability,+and+Benefits,”+America's+Health+Insurance+Plans+Center+for+Policy+and+Research,+December+2007,+at+8–9,+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
It should be noted that average premiums in the individual market are normally lower than in the group market, probably as a result of higher cost-sharing provisions in individual policies. See, e.g., The Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research and Educational Trust, Employer Health Benefits 2007 Annual Survey, 2007, at 1, available at <http://www.kff.org/insurance/7672/upload/76723.pdf> (reporting the average annual total premium cost for individual coverage in an employer-sponsored plan as $4,479) (last visited June 29, 2009).+(reporting+the+average+annual+total+premium+cost+for+individual+coverage+in+an+employer-sponsored+plan+as+$4,479)+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Matthews, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
See Miller, T., “Geographic Monopolies vs. Choice and Competition in Health Insurance Regulation: Starting a Market Driven Race to the Top,” presentation at American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, July 31, 2008, available at <http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080731_MillerPresentation.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
Health Care Choice Act of 2005: Hearing on H.R. 2355 before the Subcommittee on Health of the H. Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 109th Cong. (2005).Google Scholar
Kofman, M. and Pollitz, K., “Health Insurance Regulation by States and the Federal Government: A Review of Current Approaches and Proposals for Change,” Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University, April 2006, at 9, available at <http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/Healthinsurancereportfinalkofmanpollitz.pdf> (last visited January 29, 2009).+(last+visited+January+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See e.g., the Health Care Choice Act, H.R. 2355, Hearing before Subcommittee on Health of the H. Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 109th Cong. (June 25, 2008) (statement of Merrill Matthews, Director, Council for Affordable Health Insurance, supra note 72, at 27, available at <http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/06282005hearing1564/Matthews.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
Id., at 17–18.Google Scholar
Id., at 26.Google Scholar
See Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, supra note 8, at 5.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1015 (2008).Google Scholar
322 U.S. 533 (1944).Google Scholar
Property and casualty insurers (P/C insurers) have traditionally employed this antitrust exception to pool information through rating bureaus in order to forecast claims trend and market analysis, with the goal of reducing administrative costs and promoting a more competitive insurance market. These bureaus are sanctioned under state law to comply with state antitrust laws in all states in which they operate.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 1012 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 1011 (2008) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Ophthalmic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Musser, 143 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 1998).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq (2008).Google Scholar
As a result, specific state laws, even if they have a connection with or reference to an ERISA welfare benefit plan have been held to avoid preemption, including state laws mandating minimum health benefits. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739 (1985). State laws requiring independent physician review of medical necessity disputes; see Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002). State “any willing provider” laws requiring health plans to admit “any willing provider” (physicians, hospitals, and/or pharmacists) willing to accept the health plan's terms and conditions; see Ky. Ass'n of Health Plans v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329 (2003).Google Scholar
See Pollitz, K. et al., “Early Experience with ‘New Federalism’ in Health Insurance Regulation,” Health Affairs 19 (July/August 2000): 7–22, at 8, calling the passage of HIPAA “a new era of federal/state partnership” which “created certain minimum protections for consumers in federally and state-regulated health plans, including self-funded employer plans, while maintaining states' ability to enforce their laws that exceed federal protections.”Google Scholar
HIPAA requires guaranteed renewability of coverage in the individual market of the same policy with the same insurers, unless there is fraud, nonpayment of premiums, and other specific events. Thus, an insurer must renew an individual's policy regardless of health status unless the individual chooses to drop it. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-42 (2008).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-41 (2008).Google Scholar
United State General Accounting Office, Health, Education and Human Services Division, Letter to the Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House and Representatives, Implementation of HIPAA: State-Designed Mechanisms for Group-to-Individual Portability, Alternative Mechanisms Under HIPPA, GAO/HEHS-98-161R (May 20, 1998), available at <http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf2/160522.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Small Employer and Individual Health Insurance Availability Model Act (National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2001).Google Scholar
The five states are Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. See Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 24A, § 2736-C; Mass. Gen Laws Ch. 176J, § 4; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17B:27A- 4; N.Y. Ins. Law §§ 3231 and 4317; Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 8, § 4080b(d). All of these statutes need to include a year.Google Scholar
Federal mandates include the following: minimum post-delivery hospital stays; certain post-mastectomy treatment and care, including reconstruction, and mental health parity requirements. See Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1185, 1185a, 1185b (2008); Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300gg-4, 300gg-5, and 300gg-6 (2008).Google Scholar
Bunce, V. C. and Wieske, J. P., Council for Affordable Health Insurance, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2008,” available at <http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
America's Health Insurance Plans, Coverage Mandates, available at <http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?bc=39|341|315> (last visited January 13, 2009). (last visited January 13, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=America's+Health+Insurance+Plans,+Coverage+Mandates,+available+at++(last+visited+January+13,+2009).>Google Scholar
Board of Directors, America's Health Insurance Plans, A Commitment to Improve Health Care Quality, Access, and Affordability, March 2004, available at <http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?docid=428> (last visited June 29, 2009). (last visited June 29, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Board+of+Directors,+America's+Health+Insurance+Plans,+A+Commitment+to+Improve+Health+Care+Quality,+Access,+and+Affordability,+March+2004,+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, Comprehensive Review of Mandated Benefits in Massachusetts, Report to the Legislature, July 7, 2008, available at <http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dhcfp/r/pubs/mandates/comp_rev_mand_benefits.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
The Supreme Court in Rush Prudential v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002), held that state external review laws were “saved” from preemption and could apply to ERISA plans without supplementing or supplanting ERISA's exclusive civil enforcement scheme if they allowed the independent reviewer power to construe terms such as “medical necessity” only, rather than free-ranging power to construe contract terms, on an analogy to a medical second-opinion.Google Scholar
America's Health Insurance Plans Center for Policy and Research, An Update on State External Review Programs, 2006, July 2008, at 3, available at <http://www.ahipresearch.org/PDFs/StateExternalReviewReport.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009). (last visited June 29, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=America's+Health+Insurance+Plans+Center+for+Policy+and+Research,+An+Update+on+State+External+Review+Programs,+2006,+July+2008,+at+3,+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
States where external review laws apply to medical necessity determinations include the following: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and the District of Columbia. Id.Google Scholar
These states include the following: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 5.Google Scholar
The Health Care Choice Act of 2005, H.R. 2355, 109th Cong. (2005); and The Health Care Choice Act of 2007, H.R. 4460, 110th Cong. (2007).Google Scholar
S.1015, 109th Congress (2005); and S. 2477, 110th Congress (2007).Google Scholar
The Choice Act was ultimately reported favorably out of Committee, but received no further action in the full House.Google Scholar
For a discussion of the McCain health care proposal, see Moffit, R. E. and Owcharenko, N., The Heritage Foundation, “The McCain Health Care Plan: More Power to Families,” Backgrounder, no. 2198 (October 15, 2008), available at <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Healthcare/upload/bg_2198.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
State PASL legislation has been building momentum. See, e.g., H.B. 1327, 66th Gen. Assem., 2d Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2008) (allowing a carrier that is not subject to Colorado law to sell a policy to a Colorado resident if the policy is lawfully sold in another state; the out-of-state policy would be subject to Colorado's prompt pay law and the state's claim denial and internal appeals requirements); S.B. 1190, 190th Gen. Assem. (Pa. 2007) (providing that a state resident has the right to purchase health insurance from a foreign insurer, regardless of whether the foreign insurer is licensed or in compliance with state laws); H.B. 214, 2007–2008 Legis. Sess. (Vt. 2007) (allowing Vermont residents to purchase health insurance policies sold in other states, provided certain financial and consumer protection requirements of Vermont law are met, such as surplus and reserve requirements, disclosure and reporting requirements, and grievance procedures).Google Scholar
H.B. 7493, Gen. Assem., 2008 Legis. Sess. (R.I. 2008); and S.B. 2286, Gen. Assem., 2008 Legis. Sess. (R.I. 2008).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Interstate Insurance Product Compact website (currently limited in scope to life insurance, annuities, long-term care, and disability insurance), available at <http://www.insurancecompact.org> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. § 1012(b) (2009).Google Scholar
517 U.S. 25 (1995).Google Scholar
“Express preemption” exists when the statute contains explicit congressional intent to preempt state law. See Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 841 (1997) (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 § 514, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (2006), as express preemption clause).Google Scholar
“Field preemption” exists when the statute contains a schema of federal regulation “so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).Google Scholar
479 U.S. 806 (1986).Google Scholar
See Barnett Bank, supra note 51, at 38. (Is note 51 correct?)Google Scholar
322 U.S. 533, at 552 (1944); see also U.S. v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 877 (1996) (noting that the Court “abandoned long ago the notion that insurance is not commerce and so beyond the power of Congress to regulate.”)Google Scholar
See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (holding that Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971) (holding that Supreme Court “case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”)Google Scholar
See, id. (Raich), at 22 (“In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”)Google Scholar
See Health Care Choice Act of 2007, supra note 2, at § 3.Google Scholar
Quote from Senator McCain on “The Official Website of John McCain's 2008 Campaign for President”; site is currently inactive.Google Scholar
Kofman, M. and Pollitz, K., “Health Insurance Regulation by States and the Federal Government: A Review of Current Approaches and Proposals for Change,” Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University, April 2006, at 9, available at <http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/Healthinsurancereportfinalkofmanpollitz.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009).+(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).Google Scholar
U.S. Constitution, amend. 10.Google Scholar
Westmoreland, T. et al., The Law of Health Reform: Ten Legal Issues, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, May 30, 2008, available at <http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/documents/reform_top10.pdf> (last visited June 29, 2009). (last visited June 29, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Westmoreland,+T.+et+al.,+The+Law+of+Health+Reform:+Ten+Legal+Issues,+O'Neill+Institute+for+National+and+Global+Health+Law,+May+30,+2008,+available+at++(last+visited+June+29,+2009).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See supra note 62.Google Scholar
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).Google Scholar
See Printz, supra note 62, at 935.Google Scholar
Id., at 936.Google Scholar
528 U.S. 141, 150 (2000).Google Scholar
See Minnesota ex rel. Hatch v. U.S., 102 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1120–22 (D. Minn. 2000).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Printz, supra note 62, at 935 (O'Connor, J., concurring).Google Scholar
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). See, e.g., Printz, supra note 62, at 935 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Kansas v. U.S., 214 F.3d 1196, 1202–03 (10th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing state requirements resulting from acceptance of federal welfare funds from the situation described in Printz).Google Scholar
National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, Comprehensive Health Insurance for High-Risk Individuals: A State-by-State Analysis, 22d ed. (2007/2008): at 11.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Miller, T., “A Regulatory Bypass Operation,” Cato Journal, 22 no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2002): 85–102; Hyman, D., “Health Insurance: Market Failure or Government Failure,” Illinois Law and Economics Research Papers Series, Research Paper No. LE08–003 (2008), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087830>; Parente, S., Feldman, R., Abraham, J., and Xu, Y., Consumer Response to a National Marketplace for Individual Insurance, Final Report, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota (June 28, 2008), available at <www.aei.org/docLib/20080730_National_Marketpla.pdf>.Google Scholar
See Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, supra note 8, at 5.Google Scholar