LoboVault Home
 

The Prudent Layperson Standard: Bridging the Gap Between EMTALA and MCO Review of Emergency Utilization

LoboVault

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1928/2903

The Prudent Layperson Standard: Bridging the Gap Between EMTALA and MCO Review of Emergency Utilization

Show full item record

Title: The Prudent Layperson Standard: Bridging the Gap Between EMTALA and MCO Review of Emergency Utilization
Author: Vaile, Pilar
Subject(s): Prudent Layperson Standard
Health Care
Managed Care Organizations (MCOs)
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)
Health Insurance Industry
Supreme Court Decisions
Federal Regulations
Emergency Medical Care
State Authority
Abstract: The problems seen in healthcare today are best understood as having arisen as unintended consequences of competing legislative solutions conceived in the early 1970s, whose implications are only now being fully understood. This paper will begin by examining the shift from indemnification health insurance to managed care organizations (MCOs). The new federal regulatory regimes regarding healthcare created two "regulatory vacuums'" in the context of an industry-wide shift in the economic market of healthcare finance. The first vacuum created was that between the requirements of Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and the obligation of MCOs. A common response by states to this gap has been to institute a "prudent layperson"(PLP) standard. This paper will examine the consensus that has emerged behind the prudent layperson standard, whether the standard is intended to represent our old fiend, the objective "reasonable person" standard, and the economic implications and consequences of the prudent layperson standard. Unfortunately, the second vacuum created, that between Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preemption and substantive ERISA provisions, today threatens any state law seeking to regulate MCOs. Accordingly, this paper will also analyze ERISA preemption jurisprudence to date, to determine the likelihood of federal preemption of state prudent layperson laws. Analysis will demonstrate that no state effort can be clearly secure from federal preemption in today's confused legal environment. Thus, I will conclude by forecasting that only uniform, nationally mandated benefits or an amendment to ERISA permitting state health care standards or causes of action can correct the problems of MCO accountability regarding emergency medical care and federal preemption.
Date: 2000-01-27
Description: 33 p. ; An outstanding student paper selected as a Honors Paper.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1928/2903

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
PilarVaile.pdf 1.090Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record

UNM Libraries

Search LoboVault


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account