More from the above article
No employer has used Erisa to challenge Massachusetts’ 2006 individual mandate, which includes reporting requirements, but that doesn’t mean it’s legal. Last month a Brookings Institution paper conceded that “state requirements related to employer benefits like health coverage may be subject to legal challenge based on ERISA preemption.”
A 2016 Supreme Court ruling would bolster such a challenge. In Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual , the court struck down a Vermont law that required employers to submit health-care payment claims to a state database. The court said the law was pre-empted by Erisa.
Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted the myriad reporting requirements under federal law. Vermont’s law required additional record-keeping. Justice Kennedy concluded that “differing, or even parallel, regulations from multiple jurisdictions could create wasteful administrative costs and threaten to subject plans to wide-ranging liability.”
Justice Kennedy’s opinion provides a how-to manual for employers to challenge state-level insurance mandates. A morass of state-imposed insurance mandates and reporting requirements would unnecessarily burden employers with costs and complexity. It cries out for pre-emptive relief.
They also talk about how the various federal agencies that provide healthcare, military / disability Medicare / etc, can’t be forced to share info with the states, and large self-insuring corporations may pose difficulties as well.
Yes, the states can audit for it, but if they have to do that for every person, it won’t be cost effective since nearly everyone is already covered. The question is whether the states can impose all the compliance and reporting costs on the Feds or the companies just to push around the individual market in their state. More for the lawyers to argue about I guess.