gobeille
chair
vermont
green
mountain
care
board
liberty
mutual
insurance
argued
december
decided
march
vermont
law
requires
certain
entities
including
health
insurers
report
payments
relating
health
care
claims
information
relating
health
care
services
state
agency
compilation
health
care
database
respondent
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
health
plan
plan
provides
benefits
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
plan
administrator
blue
cross
blue
shield
massachusetts
blue
cross
subject
vermont
disclosure
statute
ordered
transmit
files
eligibility
medical
claims
pharmacy
claims
plan
vermont
members
respondent
concerned
disclosure
confidential
information
might
violate
fiduciary
duties
instructed
blue
cross
comply
filed
suit
seeking
declaration
erisa
application
vermont
statute
regulation
plan
injunction
prohibiting
vermont
trying
acquire
data
plan
members
district
granted
summary
judgment
vermont
second
circuit
reversed
concluding
vermont
reporting
scheme
erisa
held
erisa
vermont
statute
applied
erisa
plans
pp
erisa
expressly
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
relevant
clause
state
law
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
law
governs
interferes
uniformity
plan
administration
egelhoff
egelhoff
pp
considerations
relevant
determination
whether
impermissible
connection
exists
erisa
objectives
guide
scope
state
law
congress
understood
survive
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
nature
state
law
effect
erisa
plans
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
lead
conclusion
vermont
regime
applied
erisa
plans
pp
erisa
seeks
make
benefits
promised
employer
secure
mandating
certain
oversight
systems
standard
procedures
travelers
systems
procedures
intended
uniform
erisa
extensive
reporting
disclosure
recordkeeping
requirements
central
essential
part
uniform
plan
administration
system
vermont
law
regulation
however
also
govern
plan
reporting
disclosure
recordkeeping
necessary
order
prevent
multiple
jurisdictions
imposing
differing
even
parallel
regulations
creating
wasteful
administrative
costs
threatening
subject
plans
liability
erisa
uniform
rule
design
also
makes
clear
secretary
labor
separate
authorized
decide
whether
exempt
plans
erisa
reporting
requirements
require
erisa
plans
report
data
sought
vermont
pp
vermont
counterarguments
unpersuasive
vermont
argues
respondent
shown
state
scheme
caused
suffer
economic
costs
respondent
need
wait
bring
claim
confronted
numerous
inconsistent
obligations
encumbered
ensuing
costs
addition
fact
erisa
state
reporting
scheme
different
objectives
transform
vermont
direct
regulation
fundamental
erisa
function
innocuous
peripheral
set
additional
rules
vermont
regime
also
saved
invoking
state
traditional
power
regulate
area
public
health
pp
erisa
reporting
disclosure
recordkeeping
provisions
maintain
force
regardless
whether
new
patient
protection
affordable
care
act
reporting
obligations
also
state
law
pp
affirmed
kennedy
delivered
opinion
roberts
thomas
breyer
alito
kagan
joined
thomas
breyer
filed
concurring
opinions
ginsburg
filed
dissenting
opinion
sotomayor
joined
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
alfred
gobeille
official
capacity
chair
vermont
green
mountain
care
board
petitioner
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
march
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
case
presents
challenge
applicability
state
law
requiring
disclosure
payments
relating
health
care
claims
information
relating
health
care
services
vermont
enacted
statute
maintain
health
care
database
stat
tit
cum
supp
state
law
terms
applies
health
plans
established
employers
regulated
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
stat
amended
et
seq
question
whether
erisa
vermont
statute
applies
erisa
plans
vermont
requires
certain
public
private
entities
provide
pay
health
care
services
report
information
state
agency
reported
information
compiled
database
reflecting
health
care
utilization
costs
resources
vermont
health
care
utilization
costs
services
provided
vermont
residents
another
state
database
kind
sometimes
called
claims
database
requires
submission
data
health
insurers
entities
pay
health
care
services
almost
implementing
similar
databases
see
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
vermont
law
requires
health
insurers
health
care
providers
health
care
facilities
governmental
agencies
report
information
relating
health
care
costs
prices
quality
utilization
resources
required
state
agency
including
data
relating
health
insurance
claims
enrollment
health
insurers
must
submit
claims
data
members
subscribers
policyholders
vermont
law
defines
health
insurer
include
health
care
benefit
plan
well
third
party
administrator
similar
entity
claims
data
eligibility
data
provider
files
information
relating
health
care
provided
vermont
resident
database
must
made
available
resource
insurers
employers
providers
purchasers
health
care
state
agencies
continuously
review
health
care
utilization
expenditures
performance
vermont
vermont
law
leaves
state
agency
responsibility
establish
types
information
filed
section
time
place
manner
information
shall
filed
law
implemented
regulation
creating
vermont
healthcare
claims
uniform
reporting
evaluation
system
regulation
requires
submission
medical
claims
data
pharmacy
claims
data
member
eligibility
data
provider
data
information
reg
code
rules
cvr
accordance
specific
formatting
coding
requirements
regulation
health
insurers
must
report
data
health
care
services
provided
vermonters
regardless
whether
treated
vermont
treated
vermont
see
also
agency
present
collect
data
denied
claims
statute
allow
covered
entities
reporters
must
register
state
must
submit
data
monthly
quarterly
annually
depending
number
individuals
entity
serves
people
served
frequently
reports
must
filed
entities
fewer
members
need
report
termed
voluntary
reporters
distinct
mandated
reporters
reporters
fined
complying
statute
regulation
respondent
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
maintains
health
plan
plan
provides
benefits
individuals
comprising
respondent
employees
families
former
employees
plan
means
plan
benefits
paid
respondent
plan
qualifies
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
erisa
subject
erisa
comprehensive
regulation
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
respondent
plan
sponsor
fiduciary
plan
administrator
plan
uses
blue
cross
blue
shield
massachusetts
blue
cross
administrator
blue
cross
manages
processing
review
payment
claims
respondent
liberty
mut
ins
donegan
case
contract
blue
cross
respondent
agreed
hold
blue
cross
harmless
charges
including
legal
fees
judgments
administrative
expenses
benefit
payment
requirements
arising
connection
plan
due
respondent
failure
comply
laws
regulations
app
plan
voluntary
reporter
vermont
regulation
covers
vermonters
fewer
cutoff
mandated
reporting
blue
cross
however
serves
several
thousand
vermonters
mandated
reporter
blue
cross
therefore
must
report
information
possesses
plan
members
vermont
august
vermont
issued
subpoena
ordering
blue
cross
transmit
contractor
files
possessed
member
eligibility
medical
claims
pharmacy
claims
vermont
members
clarity
uses
vermont
refer
state
also
state
officials
acting
official
capacity
penalty
noncompliance
vermont
threatened
fine
day
suspension
blue
cross
authorization
operate
vermont
long
six
months
respondent
concerned
part
disclosure
confidential
information
regarding
members
might
violate
fiduciary
duties
plan
instructed
blue
cross
comply
respondent
filed
action
district
district
vermont
sought
declaration
erisa
application
vermont
statute
regulation
plan
injunction
forbidding
vermont
trying
acquire
data
plan
members
vermont
filed
motion
dismiss
district
treated
one
summary
judgment
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
respondent
filed
summary
judgment
district
granted
summary
judgment
vermont
first
held
respondent
despite
mere
voluntary
reporter
standing
sue
faced
either
allegedly
violating
fiduciary
administrative
responsibilities
plan
assuming
liability
blue
cross
withholding
data
vermont
liberty
mut
ins
kimbell
district
concluded
state
reporting
scheme
although
scheme
may
indirect
effect
health
benefit
plans
reasoned
effect
peripheral
regulation
considered
attempt
interfere
administration
structure
welfare
benefit
plan
appeals
second
circuit
reversed
panel
unanimous
concluding
respondent
standing
divided
merits
challenge
panel
majority
explained
one
erisa
core
functions
reporting
laden
burdens
subject
incompatible
multiple
variable
demands
freighted
risk
fines
breach
duty
legal
expense
vermont
regime
held
granted
certiorari
address
important
issue
erisa
ii
text
erisa
express
clause
necessary
starting
point
terse
comprehensive
erisa
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
addressed
potential
reach
clause
travelers
observed
taken
extend
furthest
stretch
indeterminacy
practical
purposes
never
run
course
result
sensible
person
intended
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
scalia
concurring
need
workable
standards
led
reject
uncritical
literalism
applying
clause
travelers
implementing
principles
case
law
date
described
two
categories
state
laws
erisa
first
erisa
state
law
erisa
plans
ibid
precise
state
law
acts
immediately
exclusively
upon
erisa
plans
existence
erisa
plans
essential
law
operation
result
dillingham
supra
second
erisa
state
law
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
meaning
state
law
governs
central
matter
plan
administration
interferes
nationally
uniform
plan
administration
egelhoff
egelhoff
state
law
also
might
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
acute
albeit
indirect
economic
effects
state
law
force
erisa
plan
adopt
certain
scheme
substantive
coverage
effectively
restrict
choice
insurers
travelers
supra
considered
together
formulations
ensure
erisa
express
clause
receives
broad
scope
congress
intended
avoiding
clause
susceptibility
limitless
application
iii
respondent
contends
vermont
law
falls
second
category
state
laws
erisa
laws
govern
interfere
uniformity
plan
administration
impermissible
erisa
plans
egelhoff
supra
travelers
presented
contentions
earlier
cases
considered
objectives
erisa
statute
guide
scope
state
law
congress
understood
survive
nature
effect
state
law
erisa
plans
dillingham
supra
considerations
lead
conclude
vermont
regime
applied
erisa
plans
erisa
guarantee
substantive
benefits
statute
instead
seeks
make
benefits
promised
employer
secure
mandating
certain
oversight
systems
standard
procedures
travelers
systems
procedures
intended
uniform
erisa
clause
indicates
congress
intent
establish
regulation
employee
welfare
benefit
plans
exclusively
federal
quoting
alessi
requiring
erisa
administrators
master
relevant
laws
contend
litigation
undermine
congressional
goal
ing
administrative
financial
burden
plan
administrators
burdens
ultimately
borne
beneficiaries
egelhoff
supra
quoting
mcclendon
see
also
fort
halifax
packing
coyne
erisa
reporting
disclosure
recordkeeping
requirements
welfare
benefit
plans
extensive
erisa
plans
must
present
participants
plan
description
explaining
among
things
plan
eligibility
requirements
procedures
plans
must
notify
participants
claim
denied
state
basis
denial
important
question
presented
welfare
benefit
plans
governed
erisa
must
file
annual
report
secretary
labor
report
must
include
financial
statement
listing
assets
liabilities
previous
year
receipts
disbursements
funds
information
assets
liabilities
well
receipts
disbursements
must
provided
plan
participants
annual
basis
well
welfare
benefit
plans
business
providing
benefits
plan
participants
plan
reporting
data
disbursements
definition
incorporates
paid
claims
see
dept
labor
schedule
form
financial
information
requiring
reporting
enefit
claims
payable
enefit
payment
payments
provide
benefits
online
http
last
visited
secretary
labor
authority
establish
additional
reporting
disclosure
requirements
erisa
plans
erisa
permits
secretary
use
data
disclosed
plans
statistical
research
purposes
compile
publish
studies
analyses
reports
surveys
based
thereon
may
deem
appropriate
secretary
also
may
connection
research
collect
compile
analyze
publish
data
information
statistics
relating
plans
see
also
approving
studies
relating
employee
benefit
plans
matters
regulated
subchapter
enforcement
procedures
provided
subchapter
erisa
permits
secretary
labor
requir
information
data
plan
finds
data
information
necessary
carry
purposes
statute
investigating
possible
statutory
violation
require
submission
reports
books
records
filing
data
related
requisite
filings
secretary
general
power
promulgate
regulations
necessary
appropriate
administer
statute
provide
exemptions
reporting
obligations
come
surprise
plans
must
keep
detailed
records
compliance
erisa
reporting
disclosure
requirements
may
verified
explained
clarified
checked
accuracy
completeness
records
retained
must
include
vouchers
worksheets
receipts
applicable
resolutions
ibid
see
also
allowing
secretary
provide
keeping
books
records
inspection
books
records
various
requirements
mere
formalities
violation
one
may
result
civil
criminal
liability
see
makes
plain
reporting
disclosure
recordkeeping
central
essential
part
uniform
system
plan
administration
contemplated
erisa
fact
noted
often
requirements
integral
aspects
erisa
see
dillingham
travelers
supra
supra
massachusetts
morash
fort
halifax
supra
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
vermont
reporting
regime
compels
plans
report
detailed
information
claims
plan
members
intrudes
upon
central
matter
plan
administration
interferes
nationally
uniform
plan
administration
egelhoff
state
law
regulation
govern
plan
reporting
disclosure
necessary
implication
recordkeeping
matters
fundamental
components
erisa
regulation
plan
administration
differing
even
parallel
regulations
multiple
jurisdictions
create
wasteful
administrative
costs
threaten
subject
plans
liability
see
supplying
penalties
violation
vermont
reporting
rules
cvr
necessary
prevent
imposing
novel
inconsistent
burdensome
reporting
requirements
plans
secretary
labor
authorized
administer
reporting
requirements
plans
governed
erisa
may
exempt
plans
erisa
reporting
requirements
altogether
see
cfr
exempting
health
plans
annual
financial
reporting
requirement
may
authorized
require
erisa
plans
report
data
similar
vermont
seeks
though
question
presented
either
way
uniform
rule
design
erisa
makes
clear
decisions
federal
authorities
separate
vermont
disputes
reporting
regime
several
fronts
state
argues
respondent
demonstrated
reporting
regime
fact
caused
suffer
economic
costs
brief
petitioner
respondent
challenge
based
theory
state
law
must
solely
economic
burdens
caused
state
law
see
travelers
respondent
argues
rather
vermont
scheme
regulates
central
aspect
plan
administration
scheme
plans
face
possibility
body
disuniform
state
reporting
laws
even
uniform
necessity
accommodate
multiple
governmental
agencies
plan
need
wait
bring
claim
confronted
numerous
inconsistent
obligations
encumbered
ensuing
costs
vermont
contends
furthermore
erisa
state
statute
regulation
state
reporting
scheme
different
objectives
recognized
principal
object
erisa
protect
plan
participants
beneficiaries
boggs
boggs
enacting
erisa
congress
primary
concern
mismanagement
funds
accumulated
finance
employee
benefits
failure
pay
employees
benefits
accumulated
funds
morash
supra
state
maintains
program
nothing
financial
solvency
plans
prudent
behavior
fiduciaries
see
brief
petitioner
suffice
avoid
federal
claims
turn
congress
intent
travelers
purpose
state
law
relevant
may
relate
scope
state
law
congress
understood
survive
nature
effect
state
law
erisa
plans
dillingham
supra
travelers
example
noted
oth
purpose
effects
state
law
issue
distinguish
ed
laws
function
regulation
erisa
plan
perceived
difference
objectives
vermont
law
erisa
shield
vermont
reporting
regime
vermont
orders
health
insurers
including
erisa
plans
report
detailed
information
administration
benefits
systematic
manner
direct
regulation
fundamental
erisa
function
difference
purpose
transform
direct
regulation
central
matter
plan
administration
egelhoff
supra
innocuous
peripheral
set
additional
rules
vermont
regime
saved
invoking
state
traditional
power
regulate
area
public
health
past
addressed
claims
starting
presumption
congress
intend
supplant
state
law
particular
state
laws
regulating
subject
traditional
state
power
travelers
supra
erisa
however
certainly
contemplated
substantial
areas
traditional
state
regulation
dillingham
erisa
state
law
regulates
key
facet
plan
administration
even
state
law
exercises
traditional
state
power
see
egelhoff
fact
reporting
principal
essential
feature
erisa
demonstrates
congress
intended
state
reporting
laws
like
vermont
including
operate
purpose
furthering
public
health
analysis
may
different
applied
state
law
tax
hospitals
see
de
buono
medical
clinical
services
fund
enforcement
necessitates
incidental
reporting
erisa
plans
law
presumption
whatever
force
instances
validate
state
law
enters
fundamental
area
erisa
regulation
thereby
counters
federal
purpose
way
state
law
iv
respondent
suggests
patient
protection
affordable
care
act
aca
created
new
reporting
obligations
health
plans
incorporated
requirements
body
erisa
demonstrates
erisa
vermont
reporting
regime
see
aca
however
specified
shall
construed
preempt
state
law
prevent
application
provisions
aca
provision
might
prevent
new
reporting
obligations
state
reporting
regimes
like
vermont
notwithstanding
incorporation
requirements
heart
erisa
see
providing
new
aca
provisions
shall
construed
affect
modify
erisa
clause
applied
group
health
plans
need
resolve
issue
erisa
reporting
disclosure
recordkeeping
provisions
upon
conclusion
rests
maintain
force
whether
new
aca
reporting
obligations
also
state
law
erisa
express
clause
requires
invalidation
vermont
reporting
statute
applied
erisa
plans
state
statute
imposes
duties
inconsistent
central
design
erisa
provide
single
uniform
national
scheme
administration
erisa
plans
without
interference
laws
several
even
laws
large
extent
impose
parallel
requirements
judgment
appeals
second
circuit
affirmed
thomas
concurring
alfred
gobeille
official
capacity
chair
vermont
green
mountain
care
board
petitioner
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
march
justice
thomas
concurring
join
opinion
faithfully
applies
precedents
interpreting
express
provision
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
write
separately
come
doubt
whether
valid
exercise
congressional
power
whether
approach
erisa
consistent
broader
jurisprudence
section
contains
may
expansive
express
provision
federal
statute
section
except
provided
erisa
shall
supersede
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
ordinary
meaning
phrase
relate
state
laws
bearing
bring
association
connection
erisa
plan
shaw
delta
air
lines
quoting
black
law
dictionary
ed
seemingly
acknowledges
broadly
extends
excepting
generally
applicable
criminal
law
state
laws
regulat
ing
insurance
banking
securities
generally
applicable
civil
laws
section
sum
clearly
expansive
much
one
might
excused
wondering
first
blush
whether
words
limitation
relate
much
limiting
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
read
according
plain
terms
raises
constitutional
concerns
supremacy
clause
gives
status
federal
laws
constitution
wyeth
levine
thomas
concurring
judgment
quoting
art
vi
cl
question
whether
provision
article
authorizes
congress
prohibit
applying
host
generally
applicable
civil
laws
erisa
plans
constitution
requires
distinction
truly
national
truly
local
morrison
federal
government
take
regulation
entire
areas
traditional
state
concern
including
areas
nothing
regulation
commercial
activities
boundaries
spheres
federal
state
authority
blur
political
responsibility
become
illusory
lopez
kennedy
concurring
congress
regulate
aspects
erisa
plans
pursuant
commerce
clause
mean
congress
exempt
erisa
plans
state
regulations
nothing
interstate
commerce
see
gonzales
raich
thomas
dissenting
ii
used
interpret
according
text
became
uncomfortable
much
state
law
read
literally
taken
extend
furthest
stretch
indeterminacy
explained
practical
purposes
never
run
course
travelers
supra
rather
addressing
constitutionality
abandoned
efforts
give
text
ordinary
meaning
travelers
adopted
atextual
thought
workable
standards
construe
ante
thus
determine
whether
state
law
impermissibly
relates
erisa
plan
due
connection
plan
look
objectives
erisa
statute
well
nature
effect
state
law
erisa
plans
egelhoff
egelhoff
citing
travelers
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
decided
travelers
joined
opinion
joined
others
applying
approach
adopted
travelers
interpretation
erisa
express
provision
become
increasingly
difficult
reconcile
jurisprudence
travelers
departed
statutory
text
deeming
unhelpful
cases
involving
express
provisions
text
beginning
often
end
analysis
chamber
commerce
america
whiting
ing
plain
define
scope
immigration
reform
control
act
express
clause
see
also
national
meat
assn
harris
slip
parsing
text
determine
scope
federal
meat
inspection
act
express
clause
likewise
refused
look
policy
limits
remotely
discernible
statutory
text
whiting
supra
given
sound
basis
departing
principles
treating
differently
express
provisions
travelers
approach
erisa
also
avoid
constitutional
concerns
continued
interpret
substantial
areas
traditional
state
regulation
ing
state
law
even
state
law
exercises
traditional
state
power
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
confront
whether
congress
constitutional
authority
wide
array
state
laws
first
place
lower
courts
continue
struggle
apply
behooves
us
address
whether
article
gives
congress
power
whether
may
permissibly
read
avoid
unconstitutional
results
breyer
concurring
alfred
gobeille
official
capacity
chair
vermont
green
mountain
care
board
petitioner
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
march
justice
breyer
concurring
write
separately
emphasize
failure
find
subject
health
plans
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
stat
amended
et
potentially
conflicting
information
reporting
requirements
likely
create
serious
administrative
problems
points
respondent
plan
provides
benefits
individuals
living
different
see
ante
addition
amici
curiae
tell
us
health
plans
provide
benefits
million
americans
brief
american
benefits
council
et
al
amici
curiae
state
free
go
way
independently
determining
information
plan
must
provide
benefits
result
well
unnecessary
duplicative
conflicting
reporting
requirements
mean
increased
confusion
increased
cost
private
standard
setting
course
help
alleviate
problems
given
large
number
different
possible
regulations
believe
sufficient
cf
costello
taylor
apcd
council
nahdo
standardization
data
collection
claims
databases
online
https
last
visited
also
emphasize
necessarily
prevent
vermont
obtaining
information
need
wishing
obtain
information
ask
federal
government
appropriate
approval
majority
points
secretary
labor
authority
establish
additional
reporting
disclosure
requirements
erisa
plans
ante
see
moreover
secretary
authorized
undertake
research
surveys
connection
therewith
collect
compile
analyze
publish
data
information
statistics
relating
employee
benefit
plans
including
retirement
deferred
compensation
welfare
plans
least
one
important
statute
provides
secretary
health
human
services
similar
authority
see
part
patient
protection
affordable
care
act
applicable
group
health
insurance
plans
including
erisa
plans
brief
amicus
curiae
department
labor
department
health
human
services
department
treasury
currently
considering
rulemaking
require
health
plans
report
detailed
information
various
aspects
plan
administration
enrollment
claims
processing
benefit
offerings
see
reason
secretary
labor
develop
reporting
requirements
satisfy
needs
including
requirements
appropriate
see
department
delegate
particular
state
authority
obtain
data
related
state
also
providing
data
federal
secretary
use
federal
level
although
need
federal
approval
authorization
limits
degree
power
obtain
information
requiring
approval
considerable
advantages
federal
agencies
likely
informed
understand
consequences
needs
national
perspective
involvement
may
consequently
secure
necessary
information
without
unnecessarily
creating
costly
conflicts
particularly
compared
alternatives
giving
state
free
rein
go
way
asking
nonexpert
federal
courts
try
iron
regulation
regulation
conflicts
cf
tronic
lohr
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
reading
complex
ambiguous
regulatory
statute
permit
informed
agency
involvement
likely
achieve
congress
general
objectives
reasons
others
majority
sets
forth
agree
vermont
statute
interferes
nationally
uniform
plan
administration
egelhoff
egelhoff
ginsburg
dissenting
alfred
gobeille
official
capacity
chair
vermont
green
mountain
care
board
petitioner
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
march
justice
ginsburg
justice
sotomayor
joins
dissenting
better
control
health
care
outcomes
costs
vermont
requires
public
private
entities
pay
health
care
services
provided
vermont
residents
supply
data
state
claims
database
many
similar
databases
place
development
question
presented
case
whether
vermont
health
care
law
preempted
employer
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
stat
et
federal
law
regulating
employee
benefit
plans
hold
vermont
effort
track
health
care
services
provided
residents
cost
services
impermissibly
intrude
erisa
dominion
employee
benefit
plans
vermont
legislature
established
vermont
health
care
uniform
reporting
evaluation
system
database
populated
information
health
care
claims
paid
insurers
coverage
providers
see
stat
tit
cum
supp
reg
code
rules
directing
insurers
coverage
providers
submit
medical
claims
data
pharmacy
claims
data
member
eligibility
data
provider
data
information
related
health
care
provided
vermont
residents
health
care
provided
vermont
health
care
providers
facilities
health
insurers
coverage
providers
must
report
required
data
cover
least
vermont
residents
ab
seventeen
enacted
similar
database
systems
called
claims
databases
like
vermont
collect
data
serve
compelling
interests
including
identification
reforms
effective
drive
health
care
costs
evaluation
relative
utility
different
treatment
options
detection
instances
discrimination
provision
care
see
brief
national
governors
association
et
al
amici
curiae
brief
harvard
law
school
center
health
law
policy
innovation
et
al
amici
curiae
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
see
also
stat
tit
vermont
law
designed
help
identif
health
care
needs
infor
health
care
policy
evaluat
effectiveness
intervention
programs
improving
patient
outcomes
compar
costs
various
treatment
settings
approaches
determin
capacity
distribution
existing
resources
provid
information
purchasers
health
care
respondent
liberty
mutual
insurance
company
liberty
common
legions
employers
provides
health
care
employees
plan
administered
blue
shield
blue
cross
blue
cross
administers
thousands
health
care
policies
vermont
state
requires
report
data
plans
administers
blue
cross
complied
mandate
example
blue
cross
reported
data
vermont
health
beneficiaries
roughly
half
beneficiaries
received
coverage
employer
policies
app
liberty
request
blue
cross
submit
data
vermont
residents
received
coverage
liberty
plan
vermont
ordered
blue
cross
provide
claims
data
liberty
instructed
blue
cross
comply
shortly
thereafter
filed
instant
suit
seeking
block
vermont
obtaining
data
defense
resistance
vermont
law
liberty
relies
plan
status
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
defined
plan
fund
program
established
maintained
employer
purpose
providing
participants
beneficiaries
purchase
insurance
otherwise
medical
surgical
hospital
care
benefits
benefits
event
sickness
erisa
directs
plan
fiduciaries
conserve
plan
assets
purpose
providing
benefits
participants
ii
liberty
maintains
erisa
preempts
diverse
state
reporting
laws
mandatory
reporting
erisa
plans
liberty
urges
source
mandate
uniform
national
reporting
regime
see
brief
respondent
tr
oral
arg
opposing
preemption
law
vermont
points
efficacy
state
law
depends
comprehensive
reporting
collecting
data
numerous
beneficiaries
several
major
segments
health
care
market
see
brief
petitioner
brief
harvard
law
school
center
health
law
policy
innovation
et
al
amici
curiae
half
americans
health
insurance
receive
coverage
employers
dept
commerce
bureau
census
smith
medalia
health
insurance
coverage
persons
covered
employer
plan
brief
harvard
law
school
center
health
law
policy
innovation
et
al
amici
curiae
vermont
database
total
content
originates
employer
plans
brief
petitioner
stopping
collecting
claims
data
employer
health
care
plans
thus
hugely
undermine
reporting
regimes
vermont
depend
maintain
improve
quality
hold
cost
health
care
services
district
district
vermont
rejected
liberty
plea
preemption
vermont
law
determined
served
state
undoubted
interest
regulating
health
care
markets
substantially
interfere
operation
liberty
erisa
plans
see
app
pet
cert
appeals
second
circuit
reversed
two
one
liberty
mut
ins
donegan
majority
acknowledged
decisions
marked
something
pivot
starting
presumption
congress
intend
supplant
state
law
especially
action
occurs
fields
traditional
state
regulation
like
health
care
quoting
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
nonetheless
majority
concluded
erisa
preempted
application
vermont
law
liberty
plan
reporting
information
plan
benefits
majority
reasoned
qualifies
core
erisa
functio
therefore
must
subject
uniform
federal
standard
judge
straub
dissented
offering
concise
critique
majority
opinion
majority
finds
burden
imposed
vermont
reporting
requirement
warrants
preemption
statute
conclusion
falters
two
primary
reasons
first
reporting
requirement
imposed
vermont
statute
differs
kind
required
erisa
therefore
kind
state
law
congress
intended
preempt
second
liberty
mutual
failed
show
actual
burden
much
less
burden
triggers
erisa
preemption
rather
vermont
statute
interfere
erisa
plan
administration
benefits
ii
essentially
reasons
judge
straub
identified
hold
erisa
preempt
vermont
statute
law
erisa
serve
different
purposes
erisa
domain
design
administration
employee
benefit
plans
notably
prescriptions
vesting
benefits
claims
processing
designation
beneficiaries
see
travelers
congress
intended
ensure
plans
plan
sponsors
subject
uniform
body
benefits
law
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
reporting
requirements
geared
functions
ensure
plans
fact
provide
covered
benefits
vermont
statute
contrast
aims
improve
quality
utilization
reduce
cost
health
care
vermont
providing
consumers
government
officials
researchers
comprehensive
data
health
care
delivery
system
vermont
law
impose
burdens
erisa
plans
kind
found
sufficient
warrant
preemption
erisa
preemption
clause
provides
act
shall
supersede
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
lacking
clear
direction
clause
opaque
text
de
buono
medical
clinical
services
fund
sought
honor
congress
evident
call
expansive
preemption
principle
without
invalidating
state
regulations
falling
outside
erisa
domain
see
travelers
governing
text
erisa
preemption
clause
clearly
expansive
taken
extend
furthest
stretch
indeterminacy
practical
purposes
never
run
course
really
universally
relations
stop
nowhere
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
seeking
bring
measure
determinacy
erisa
preemption
stated
law
employee
benefit
plan
connection
reference
plan
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
case
appeals
found
parties
contest
vermont
law
lacks
reference
erisa
plans
law
applies
health
care
payers
home
erisa
plans
see
question
therefore
whether
law
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
term
scarcely
restrictive
cautioned
uncritical
literalism
egelhoff
egelhoff
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
set
formulation
determine
whether
state
law
forbidden
connection
look
objectives
erisa
statute
guide
scope
state
law
congress
understood
survive
well
nature
effect
state
law
erisa
plans
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
framing
preemption
doctrine
assum
lightly
congress
derogated
state
regulation
instead
addresse
claims
starting
presumption
congress
intend
supplant
state
law
travelers
especially
state
regulation
deals
matters
health
safety
de
buono
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
travelers
subsequent
decisions
upholding
state
laws
preemption
challenges
made
clear
presumption
plays
important
role
erisa
cases
travelers
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
de
buono
vermont
law
vital
part
state
control
health
care
market
see
supra
straub
dissenting
presumption
preemption
thus
apply
full
strength
liberty
rebutted
shown
erisa
demands
preemption
vermont
law
contrary
erisa
preemption
precedent
points
preemption
case
determine
whether
vermont
law
applied
liberty
plan
impermissible
connection
erisa
plans
look
first
objectives
erisa
statute
guide
egelhoff
oneok
learjet
slip
emphasizing
importance
considering
target
state
law
aims
applying
ordinary
principles
erisa
reporting
requirements
vermont
law
elicit
different
information
serve
distinct
purposes
sensible
reason
find
vermont
law
preempted
benefit
plans
must
absent
exemption
file
annual
reports
containing
financial
actuarial
data
enable
secretary
labor
evaluate
plans
management
solvency
see
dillingham
congress
established
extensive
reporting
requirements
protect
mismanagement
funds
accumulated
finance
employee
benefits
failure
pay
employees
benefits
accumulated
funds
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
beyond
debate
vermont
law
seek
regulate
management
solvency
welfare
plans
see
supra
reciting
objectives
vermont
law
vermont
requests
information
plan
finances
see
reg
code
rules
supra
detailing
types
data
collected
vermont
state
collects
data
paid
health
care
claims
denied
claims
see
vermont
seeks
better
understanding
residents
obtain
health
care
effective
care
unlike
erisa
superintendence
vermont
interest
lie
reviewing
whether
provider
keeping
bargain
covered
employees
vermont
statute
even
arguably
regulate
relationships
among
prime
erisa
entities
beneficiaries
participants
administrators
employees
trustees
fiduciaries
plan
despite
significant
differences
erisa
reporting
requirements
vermont
regime
liberty
contends
congress
intended
spare
erisa
plans
reporting
requirements
unless
requirements
nationally
uniform
support
contention
liberty
points
dicta
opinions
selections
erisa
legislative
history
see
travelers
ubject
matters
covered
erisa
include
reporting
disclosure
fiduciary
responsibility
like
quoting
shaw
delta
air
lines
mcclendon
erisa
sets
various
uniform
standards
including
rules
concerning
reporting
disclosure
fiduciary
responsibility
pension
welfare
plans
cong
rec
remarks
javits
state
laws
compelling
disclosure
plans
far
unambiguously
endorsing
liberty
sweeping
view
erisa
preemptive
scope
statements
read
least
reasonably
unremarkable
principle
erisa
preempts
state
reporting
rules
designed
serve
purposes
erisa
reporting
requirements
limited
understanding
consistent
admonition
pay
close
attention
objectives
erisa
statute
guide
egelhoff
satisfied
erisa
objectives
require
preemption
vermont
law
turn
nature
effect
state
law
erisa
plans
ibid
imposition
burdens
administration
erisa
plans
held
suffice
require
preemption
see
de
buono
law
imposing
costs
acute
effectively
dictate
plan
designed
administered
trigger
preemption
see
extreme
effects
present
moreover
central
matter
plan
administration
egelhoff
touched
vermont
law
law
prescribes
vesting
requirements
benefit
levels
beneficiary
designations
rules
claims
processed
paid
indeed
vermont
law
require
liberty
anything
burden
compliance
falls
blue
cross
apparently
provides
data
without
protest
behalf
plans
see
supra
reporting
disclosure
doubt
required
erisa
plans
requirements
ancillary
areas
erisa
governs
reporting
recordkeeping
incident
state
laws
general
applicability
upheld
bear
erisa
plans
de
buono
example
held
tax
patient
services
provided
hospital
operated
erisa
plan
preempted
even
though
administration
tax
required
filing
quarterly
reports
dillingham
held
california
law
preempted
applied
apprenticeship
programs
established
erisa
plans
laws
typically
require
employees
keep
records
wages
paid
employees
make
available
review
state
authorities
see
cal
lab
code
ann
west
law
dillingham
second
circuit
erred
holding
erisa
preempts
reporting
obligation
slight
see
vermont
statute
keeps
company
laws
considered
de
buono
dillingham
generally
applicable
involve
central
matter
plan
administration
egelhoff
judge
straub
emphasized
dissent
liberty
failed
provide
details
showing
alleged
burden
instead
arguing
regulations
costs
quoting
liberty
appellate
brief
explains
supposition
indulged
second
circuit
vermont
law
imposed
substantial
burden
obvious
even
particularly
plausible
without
factual
support
brief
amicus
curiae
law
essentially
requires
blue
cross
liberty
administrator
take
information
generated
ordinary
course
operations
report
information
prescribed
format
state
ibid
appeals
majority
accentuated
sheer
number
data
entries
must
reported
vermont
see
accord
ante
opinion
breyer
entirely
overlooked
enumeration
technological
capacity
efficient
data
storage
formatting
submission
see
brief
national
association
health
data
organizations
et
al
amici
curiae
describing
electronic
path
data
take
health
provider
insurer
health
care
plan
ultimately
state
database
regulatory
compliance
depends
upon
use
evolving
technologies
incumbent
objector
show
concretely
alleged
regulatory
burden
fact
laws
like
vermont
uniform
state
state
compliance
inevitably
burdensome
liberty
successfully
argued
appeals
replays
reasoning
today
opinion
see
ante
diversity
hallmark
political
system
lauded
opinions
see
arizona
state
legislature
arizona
independent
redistricting
slip
long
recognized
role
laboratories
devising
solutions
difficult
legal
problems
citing
new
state
ice
liebmann
brandeis
dissenting
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
something
inherent
characteristic
federal
system
therefore
must
underpin
preemption
liberty
liberty
points
egelhoff
exemplary
egelhoff
deceased
participant
challenged
state
law
revoked
beneficiary
status
automatically
upon
divorce
even
though
erisa
plan
terms
held
erisa
preempted
law
binds
erisa
plan
administrators
particular
choice
rules
determining
beneficiary
status
context
said
requiring
erisa
administrators
master
relevant
laws
undermine
congressional
goal
minimizing
administrative
financial
burdens
plan
administrators
burdens
ultimately
borne
beneficiaries
internal
quotation
marks
brackets
omitted
took
care
however
confine
egelhoff
issues
implicating
central
matter
plan
administration
words
core
erisa
concern
category
comprise
earlier
described
see
supra
prescriptions
benefit
levels
beneficiary
designations
vesting
requirements
rules
processing
payment
claims
rank
central
core
erisa
reporting
disclosure
obligations
kind
regulation
design
administration
employee
benefit
plans
reporting
disclosures
tied
areas
erisa
governs
erisa
reporting
disclosure
requirements
thus
concerned
mismanagement
funds
failure
pay
employee
benefits
plan
assets
allocations
information
bearing
financial
integrity
plan
see
supra
vermont
law
eliciting
information
medical
claims
services
provided
beneficiaries
charges
payment
services
demographic
makeup
receiving
benefits
fit
bill
reporting
relating
plan
taxes
wage
payments
numerous
informed
urgent
need
information
yielded
health
care
laws
see
brief
national
governors
association
et
al
amici
curiae
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
brief
connecticut
health
insurance
exchange
amicus
curiae
brief
state
new
hampshire
amicus
curiae
wait
federal
government
acts
response
department
labor
capacious
grant
statutory
authority
observes
might
allow
collect
data
vermont
seek
erisa
plan
payments
see
ante
ante
opinion
breyer
information
collected
conjectures
department
pass
data
cf
ante
opinion
breyer
suggesting
seek
department
permission
enforce
reporting
requirements
like
vermont
unsettling
however
leave
dependent
federal
agency
grace
department
labor
willingness
take
chore
divorced
erisa
declaring
reporting
unmodified
central
core
erisa
function
second
circuit
passes
line
drew
travelers
de
buono
dillingham
reined
longer
operate
provision
bogan
protecting
patient
rights
despite
erisa
tulane
rev
see
supra
dissent
retrieval
preemption
doctrine
belongs
discard
bin
footnotes
addition
vermont
far
maintaining
claims
databases
arkansas
colorado
connecticut
kansas
maine
maryland
massachusetts
minnesota
new
hampshire
new
york
oregon
rhode
island
tennessee
utah
virginia
washington
west
virginia
brief
national
governors
association
et
al
amici
curiae
illustrative
utility
claims
databases
minnesota
evaluated
data
visits
concluded
condition
causing
two
every
three
visits
treated
efficiently
effectively
nonhospital
setting
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
liberty
plan
trigger
vermont
reporting
requirements
plan
participants
resided
state
total
individuals
covered
liberty
plan
app
pet
cert
federal
government
supplies
medicare
claims
data
vermont
maintain
similar
databases
see
requiring
department
health
human
services
hhs
make
medicare
data
available
state
databases
hhs
authorized
include
medicaid
claims
data
databases
see
brief
amicus
curiae
joined
opinions
proposing
acknowledge
clause
provision
meant
set
forth
test
rather
identify
field
ordinary
field
applies
namely
field
laws
regulating
plans
california
div
labor
standards
enforcement
dillingham
scalia
concurring
egelhoff
egelhoff
scalia
concurring
whether
measured
ordinary
preemption
principles
precedent
vermont
law
survive
inspection
suggests
department
labor
collects
pursuant
erisa
reporting
rules
similar
information
data
vermont
regime
elicits
see
ante
reporting
obligations
remotely
similar
one
liberty
amici
curiae
explains
department
labor
reporting
form
cited
requires
reporting
total
amount
claims
paid
annually
plan
granular
information
including
data
location
services
rendered
vermont
collects
brief
national
coordinating
committee
multiemployer
plans
amicus
curiae
see
also
reply
brief
data
entries
cited
require
plan
enter
merely
handful
boxes
form
aggregate
sums
claims
paid
annually
see
dept
labor
schedule
form
financial
information
online
http
internet
materials
last
visited
amici
supporting
liberty
point
several
allegedly
burdensome
features
compliance
vermont
law
appear
everyday
facets
modern
regulatory
compliance
installing
maintaining
software
system
collect
remit
data
state
seeking
variances
state
regulators
health
providers
submit
required
information
plan
administrator
reformatting
data
comply
formatting
encryption
standards
see
brief
blue
cross
blue
shield
association
amicus
curiae
nn
brief
national
coordinating
committee
multiemployer
plans
amicus
curiae
liberty
contends
need
quantify
precise
cost
compliance
vermont
law
prove
law
burdensome
liberty
least
introduce
concrete
evidence
alleged
burdens
finder
fact
reasonably
ask
example
blue
cross
existing
technologies
data
storage
already
capacity
store
report
data
sought
vermont
compliance
vermont
reporting
rules
burdensome
compliance
state
reporting
laws
plan
already
complies
concurring
opinion
justice
breyer
worries
state
free
go
way
result
well
unnecessary
duplicative
conflicting
reporting
requirements
ante
support
justice
breyer
cites
report
costello
taylor
apcd
council
nahdo
standardization
data
collection
claims
databases
online
https
publication
fact
organizations
published
report
inform
us
brief
supporting
vermont
submitting
claims
data
claims
databases
routine
straightforward
process
private
organizations
worked
recent
years
standardize
requirements
brief
national
association
health
data
organizations
et
al
amici
curiae
core
erisa
concern
central
matter
plan
administration
inquiry
meaningfully
different
examination
whether
state
law
inconsistent
objectives
erisa
statute
egelhoff
see
supra
appears
disagree
stating
ny
difference
purpose
erisa
vermont
reporting
requirements
transform
vermont
direct
regulation
matter
plan
administration
innocuous
peripheral
set
additional
rules
ante
quoting
egelhoff
words
assumes
state
law
inconsistent
erisa
purposes
nonetheless
burden
central
matter
plan
administration
implicate
core
erisa
concern
missing
opinion
definition
terms
meaning
central
matter
plan
administration
core
erisa
concern
divorced
erisa
purposes
analysis
may
hamper
abilities
require
reporting
plan
benefits
plan
assets
well
example
department
labor
collects
information
real
property
held
trust
pension
plan
assess
plan
financial
see
tr
oral
arg
may
need
collect
information
different
purpose
assessing
property
tax