Health Affairs, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.w430 (Published online September 3, 2008) © 2008 by Project HOPE	New Online   Obama's Success & Next Steps   3 Health Policy Options for President Obama   A Hybrid Proposal   Bipartisan Compromise

This Article 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 Google Scholar Articles by Jost, T. S. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jost, T. S.

Web Exclusives

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

¹ Tim Jost is the Robert Willett Family Professor in the School of Law, Washington and Lee University, in Lexington, Virginia.

^*Corresponding author.

Abstract

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. [Health Affairs 27, no. 5 (2008): w430-w440 (published online 3 September 2008; 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.w430)]

Key Words: Business Of Health, Consumer Issues, Insurance Coverage, Public Health, Legal/Regulatory Issues

                      What's this?