Search

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), enacted in 1974 to regulate pension and health benefit plans, is a complex statute that dominates the managed care environment. Physicians must understand ERISA's role in the relationship between themselves and managed care organizations (MCOs), including how it can influence clinical decision making and physician autonomy. This article describes ERISA's central provisions and how ERISA influences health care delivery in MCOs. We analyze ERISA litigation trends in 4 areas: professional liability, utilization management, state legislative initiatives, and compensation arrangements. This analysis demonstrates how courts have interpreted ERISA to limit physician autonomy and subordinate clinical decision making to MCOs' cost containment decisions. Physicians should support efforts to amend ERISA, thus allowing greater state regulatory oversight of MCOs and permitting courts to hold MCOs accountable for their role in medical decision making.

Personally identifiable health information about individuals and general medical information is increasingly available in electronic form in health databases and through online networks. The proliferation of electronic data within the modern health information infrastructure presents significant benefits for medical providers and patients, including enhanced patient autonomy, improved clinical treatment, advances in health research and public health surveillance, and modern security techniques. However, it also presents new legal challenges in 3 interconnected areas: privacy of identifiable health information, reliability and quality of health data, and tortbased liability. Protecting health information privacy (by giving individuals control over health data without severely restricting warranted communal uses) directly improves the quality and reliability of health data (by encouraging individual uses of health services and communal uses of data), which diminishes tort-based liabilities (by reducing instances of medical malpractice or privacy invasions through improvements in the delivery of health care services resulting in part from better quality and reliability of clinical and research data). Following an analysis of the interconnectivity of these 3 areas and discussing existing and proposed health information privacy laws, recommendations for legal reform concerning health information privacy are presented. These include (1) recognizing identifiable health information as highly sensitive, (2) providing privacy safeguards based on fair information practices, (3) empowering patients with information and rights to consent to disclosure (4) limiting disclosures of health data absent consent, (5) incorporating industry-wide security protections, (6) establishing a national data protection authority, and (7) providing a national minimal level of privacy protections.

This case study of the public policy implications of introducing a new technology in radiology, namely, low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM), raises the issues of whether and how to place appropriate limits on new technologies. Although these contrast media represent small episodic costs, they may add up to an aggregate expenditure of nearly $1 billion per year if used for all contrast injections. As a result, this technology raises a number of important medical, economic, legal, and public policy questions. Our cost-effectiveness analysis and an analysis of the medical evidence suggest that LOCM should be limited to high-risk patients. We discuss in this article how the legal system might respond to such limitations, and we consider various public policy options for adopting restrictions on use. We conclude that the medical profession should take the lead in developing protocols for appropriate assessment, reimbursement, and use of LOCM.