Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (14-181)

argument 14-181

Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s pre‑emption test for state health‑care data laws?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case fourteen one hundred eighty one Gobay versus Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Ms. AC?

Unknown 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Under the principles this court adopted in travelers, Vermont's collection of health care data is not preempted. The database statute does not affect ERISA plans in any way that undermines ERISA's core objectives, does not require plans to offer benefits, affect the financing or fiduciary standards for plans, or change the way that plans administer benefits to their members. Vermont is merely collecting standardized data that Blue Cross necessarily generates and already provides to the state for itself and other entities. It hasn't been argued by Liberty and we can ask them about that, that this is burdensome, that it might be different from state to state and so forth.

Unknown 0:55

And it may be that this sounds more in conflict preemption than statutory preemption. But can you just answer a few questions? Um does this apply to people that are not residents in Vermont but that have been treated in Vermont? And does it also apply to people that are outside of That are Vermonters but are treated outside Vermont? I mean who what who's the universe to whom these uh uh the supplies and it seems to me that that would be difficult for plans to As implemented by the board, Your Honor, the pl the um, the same thing. Database requirements apply to Vermonters receiving healthcare services from a covered insurer, regardless of their location, so both inside Vermont and outside Vermont. If it's paid for by a covered insurer, it does not um the board has chosen not to require data from non Vermont residents receiving care in Vermont.

Unknown 1:49

With respect to the um to the burden and with respect to the burden issue on the bigger. Can you say it's chosen to, does the statute authorize it to? The statute authorizes it to do either, Your Honor. We we we oughta consider that, don't you think? Uh I don't I don't believe so, Your Honor, because the the Um program that has been challenged here by Liberty Mutual is the program as it has been implemented by the board and that that is how it has been implemented. Um And this kind of generally applicable health care regulation is not preempted for the reasons that this Court has expressed in a series of decisions, including Travelers, De Bono, Mackey and Dillingham. One of the points that Justice Kennedy suggested that

Unknown 2:33

It the states can have different reporting requirements. So it's a little bit like Egelhoff in that respect. That if there were uniform requirements that would be less burdensome. But if each state has its own specifications, then that becomes burdensome and costly. Your Honor, two responses to that. The first is that there is simply no evidence in this record that there's any cognizable burden on the third party administrators who are healthcare insurers who generate this data and are providing it already in their capacity as insurers. Second, certainly some states may choose to do these programs differently, but as some several of the Amikus briefs explain, including the brief from the National Association of Health Data Organizations, these are carefully designed programs that track

Unknown 3:24

The electronic transaction rule under HIPAA

Unknown 3:33

reporting requirements and the plan showed which they haven't I don't think showed, but suppose they showed that this was burdensome. Does that affect the analysis of the preemption question? Only in this way, Your Honor. I I think the courts holding in travelers can be distilled to basically three questions. The first question is does the plan uh does the state law specifically and directly regulate ERISA plans only? That's not an issue in this case, it does not. The second question is whether the state is regulating in an area that Congress reserved to the states. Or is regulating in an area with which Arissa is pr principally concerned? And here the state is engaging in classic health care regulation.

Unknown 4:11

So on that question the answer is no. And then travelers leave the opening.