A three-judge panel of the Maryland Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday in a 2-1 decision upheld a lower court decision to overturn a state law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on health care for employees, the Baltimore Sun reports (Dolan et al., Baltimore Sun, 1/18). The law, enacted on Jan. 12, 2006, would have required employers in Maryland with 10,000 or more employees to spend at least 8% of payroll costs on health care or contribute to a state fund for the uninsured. Wal-Mart was the only employer in Maryland that the law would have affected. The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a retail industry group that includes Wal-Mart, in February 2006 filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Baltimore over allegations that the Maryland law violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, among other allegations. In July 2006, Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled that the Maryland law violated ERISA, which has a "fundamental purpose of permitting multistate employers to maintain nationwide health and welfare plans, providing uniform nationwide benefits and permitting uniform national administration." He also ruled that the Maryland law injured Wal-Mart because the company would have had to report to the state information on payroll and health care spending, a requirement imposed on no other companies in the state (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 7/20/06). Maryland appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit court.

Appeals Court Decision
In the 4th Circuit court decision, Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote, "In short, the Fair Share Act leaves employers no reasonable choices except to change how they structure their employee benefit plans." Niemeyer added that the Maryland law violated ERISA (Baltimore Sun, 1/18). The decision is binding for federal courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina (Van Voris, Bloomberg/Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/18). Maryland has 14 days to appeal the decision to the full 4th Circuit court.

Comments
Sandra Kennedy, president of RILA, said, "The court has ... sent a strong message at states looking at similar bills: these violate federal law." Naomi Walker -- director of state legislative programs at AFL-CIO, which lobbied for the Maryland law -- said, "We have to go back to the drawing board," adding, ""State level health care reform is still possible, but it's not going to be the Maryland model" (Barbaro, New York Times, 1/18). Wal-Mart spokesperson Nate Hurst said, "Not only was this legislation widely viewed as bad public policy, the courts have confirmed that it violates the law. This politically motivated legislation did nothing to control the cost of health care or improve access to health care, so it's no wonder that legislators across the country have rejected this as bad public policy." Maryland House of Delegates Speaker Michael Busch said that state lawmakers enacted the law to prompt Wal-Mart to "be a good corporate citizen and provide the same health care benefits that all of the other big corporations do." He added that, although the law never took effect, "I do think Wal-Mart has changed its behavior since all of this has taken place" (Baltimore Sun, 1/18). Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart, said, "The overwhelming majority of the public wants to require large profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care. This form may not work, but lawmakers will work on new ways to accomplish the same thing" (New York Times, 1/18). According to Bloomberg/Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the 4th Circuit court decision might "discourage other states that have considered passing laws similar to Maryland's" (Bloomberg/Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/18).

"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Tag Cloud

Buy Accutane Without Prescription Buy Aciphex Without Prescription Buy Acomplia Without Prescription Buy Allegra Without Prescription Buy Antabuse Without Prescription Buy Armour Without Prescription Buy Atripla Without Prescription Buy Bactrim Without Prescription Buy Benicar Without Prescription Buy Biaxin Without Prescription Buy Boniva Without Prescription Buy Chantix Without Prescription Buy Cipro Without Prescription Buy Clonidine Without Prescription Buy Differin Without Prescription Buy Elavil Without Prescription Buy Emla Without Prescription Buy Erythromycin Without Prescription Buy Female Pink Viagra Without Prescription Buy Flagyl Without Prescription Buy Gleevec Without Prescription Buy Glucophage Without Prescription Buy Hangover Pills Without Prescription Buy Human Growth Hormone Without Prescription Buy Hydrochlorothiazide Without Prescription Buy Imitrex Without Prescription Buy Inderal Without Prescription Buy Lasix Without Prescription Buy Lipothin Without Prescription Buy Liv.52 Caps Without Prescription Buy Lumigan Without Prescription Buy Medrol Without Prescription Buy Misoprostol Without Prescription Buy Naltrexone Without Prescription Buy Nexium Without Prescription Buy Nolvadex Without Prescription Buy Norvasc Without Prescription Buy Ortho Tri-Cyclen Without Prescription Buy Propecia Without Prescription Buy Quick-Detox Without Prescription Buy Retin-A Without Prescription Buy Robaxin Without Prescription Buy Savella Without Prescription Buy Spiriva Without Prescription Buy Sterapred Without Prescription Buy Super Antiox GSE Without Prescription Buy Suprax Without Prescription Buy Synthroid Without Prescription Buy Trileptal Without Prescription Buy Ventolin Without Prescription Buy Yaz Without Prescription Buy Zithromax Without Prescription Buy Zyban Without Prescription