title: The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act: greater liability on managed care plans.
abstract: Mrs. Mayers' article notes the substantial differences that exist between the Senate and the House of Representatives' version of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001. While observing the remedies made available to participants, beneficiaries, or enrollees under both bills, she shows that the Senate bill places greater liability on managed care plans because it favors consumer protection, while the House of Representatives' bill does not. In order to develop an understanding of why an act of this nature is needed, Mrs. Mayers provides a brief historical overview of how managed care entities developed. She also examines the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and proposes amendments to them. She concludes her article by raising an even deeper concern, and that is: what happens to individuals without access to health care coverage.
authors.affiliation: Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi, USA. live_law@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Urura W
authors.initials: UW
authors.lastname: Mayers
mesh_terms: D019461:Employee Retirement Income Security Act / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D019458:Insurance Coverage / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008329:Managed Care Programs / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000458:organization & administration; D028701:Patient Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011057:Politics; D013219:State Government; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States