This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Trends, Legal Environment, and Policy Issues

Dale A. Rublee, PhD, MPH

JAMA. 1986;255(6):787-789.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

ON JUNE 3, 1985, the Supreme Court decided that states may require group health insurance plans to cover certain specified types of care for employees.¹ At issue in the case was whether the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company could be required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to provide 60 days of inpatient treatment in a mental hospital and certain minimum outpatient benefits in its health insurance plans. On the surface, this judgment bolsters the ability of states to enforce mandated benefit laws. Beneath the surface, however, and of greater overall significance, is the victory this case represents for employers who fund their own employee health benefits, who are not covered by this decision. In contrast, the commercial insurance industry and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who are covered by this decision, are now bound to offer what the various states require as minimum benefits for their residents.

The Court's ruling calls attention to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Center for Health Policy Research, American Medical Association, Chicago.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Center for Health Policy Research, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610 (Dr Rublee).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?