Health Affairs, 27, no. 5 (2008): w430-w440 (Published online 3 September 2008) doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.w430 © 2008 by Project HOPE	New Online   McAllen, TX & Beyond: An Expert Roundtable   Geography & Reform   Medicaid or Insurance Exchange?   Siren Song of New GME   Public Plan Option: Pro & Con

This Article Full Text (HTML) Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jost, T. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jost, T. S. Related Collections Insurance Coverage Legal/Regulatory Issues Business Of Health Consumer Issues

Web Exclusives

‘MetLife V. Glenn’: The Court Addresses A Conflict Over Conflicts In ERISA Benefit Administration

In its June 2008 decision in MetLife v. Glenn, the Supreme Court held that federal courts reviewing claim denials by Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) employee benefit plan administrators should take into account the fact that plan administrators (insurers or self-insured plans) face a conflict of interest because they pay claims out of their own pockets and arguably stand to profit by denying claims. This paper analyzes the history of the conflict in the courts over this issue; the Supreme Court’s resolution of it in MetLife; and the implications of this decision for plans, beneficiaries, and health policy.

                      What's this?