Justices void state laws on HMO suits

[JI7]

<WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court yesterday shielded insurers from big-money malpractice suits, ruling that patients can't sue HMOs in state courts when their refusal to pay for recommended care results in medical catastrophes.

"This is a sad day for America's patients and the physicians who care for them," said John C. Nelson, president of the American Medical Association. "The decision eliminates state legal accountability for managed-care plans that alter, delay or deny a physician-recommended course of treatment."

The case has a political wrinkle as well. As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush praised the Texas law as a model for a national bill of rights. But the Bush administration's Justice Department joined insurers and employers in opposing the suits brought in this case.

Yesterday, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry pledged support for a national law that would "ensure that Americans are protected from HMO misconduct.">

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/8981097.htm

[teryang]

1. The corporation not the doctor is in control

...of your health care. The people who vote for these laws get healthcare at taxpayer expense, what do they care?

Medicare is being turned over to managed care plans as well. Good luck trying to go outside of it.

[Fovea]

2. Would someone please explain to me

how this does not completely screw the full faith doctrine of the constitution?

[StopThief]

3. The "full faith doctrine of the constitution". . . .

deals with states recognizing other states. This ruling deals with the fact that Congress passed a federal law that removed the issue from the jurisdiction of state courts. Apples and oranges.

[Fovea]

4. I am confused about a principle here.

If I am injured by an HMO in another state, doesn't full faith protect my right to remedy based on the law in my jurisdiction?

Am I wrong about that?