New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Scope of Vermont Health Care Data Law

Expected ruling could prevent 18 states from collecting health care information from certain employee health plan administrators

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Lawrence Hurley

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that Vermont and 17 other states could be prevented from collecting healthcare information from certain employee health plan administrators.

The nine justices heard a one-hour oral argument over whether a 2005 Vermont data collection law aimed at improving the quality of healthcare applies to self-funded insurance plans, which are most commonly used by large companies.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Liberty Mutual Insurance Group Inc, which runs a self-funded plan administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, objected when asked to provide data, saying the U.S. Employee Retirement Security Act exempts it from such requirements.

The data includes the type of healthcare services paid for by insurers on medical claims by a patient and how much they paid.

The federal law is intended to protect employers from a patchwork of burdensome state regulations, the company said.

Self-funded plans provide insurance for 93 million Americans, according to the American Benefits Council. They are an alternative to plans in which companies contract with insurance companies, which assume the risk.

Vermont is one of 18 states with a data collection law. Liberty Mutual and its supporters argued such requirements are a particular problem for companies that operate nationally because they have to meet multiple different requirements.

Several justices appeared sympathetic on that point.

"If each state has its own specifications, then that becomes burdensome and costly," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

Likewise, Justice Stephen Breyer said that if 50 different states had 50 different laws, it would impose costs on plans "purely for bureaucratic reasons."

Some members of the court seemed sympathetic to Vermont's desire to collect the information.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether the financial cost would be as great as Liberty Mutual suggested, indicating the process was mostly automated.

"You can say it's 93 million people, but, you know, in the end, what's the cost?" she said.

A ruling is due by the end of June. The case is Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-181.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe