For plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (ERISA), the doctrine of federal ERISA preemption over state statutes, regulations or administrative schemes has been a central subject of litigation since the inception of the statute. In December 2020, the US Supreme Court issued a decision on the subject in Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n, 208 L. Ed. 2d 327 (2020).
In the short, unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court in Rutledge held that ERISA did not preempt an Arkansas statute that regulates pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBM) drug reimbursement rates. Arkansas passed Act 900 in 2015 to regulate PBM reimbursement rates for pharmacies, which, in effect, established a reimbursement floor that requires PBMs to reimburse pharmacies at a rate that reflects the pharmacy’s acquisition cost for the drug in question.
Preemption technically means situations where federal law displaces state law: a function of the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Often, lawyers speak of preemption even where it is one federal law displacing another or one state law displacing another. When statutory laws abut or overlap like tectonic plates, which should apply?
As large-scale cases proliferate under federal and state wage-and-hour laws, there is more and more reason to study plate tectonics for potential defenses. Thinking about preemption requires looking beyond the intricacies of the case at hand to broader issues of public policy; applying preemption as a defense requires thinking about more than the statute alleged in the complaint.
Finding preemption, like throwing the Eephus pitch, is an arcane but game-winning skill. Learn how to find it in this article from Michael Giambona.
Subscribe
