Early into the 114th Congress, multiple bills have already been
introduced that would repeal the insurance industry's limited
antitrust exemption granted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 USC
1011 et seq.).
On January 6, Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) introduced the
"Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of
2015," (H.R. 99). The legislation would amend the
McCarran-Ferguson Act, which currently provides the insurance
industry with an exemption from the federal antitrust laws for
conduct that is "the business of insurance," is
"subject to state regulation," and does not constitute
"an act of boycott, coercion or intimidation," (15 USC
1013), by removing the exemption for health insurers and medical
malpractice insurers. Notably, the bill would not eliminate the
exemption with respect to other lines of insurance, and is similar
to McCarran repeal bills that Representative Conyers has introduced
in prior sessions of Congress. Representative Conyers has
previously stated that his bill would "end the mistake
Congress made in 1945 when it added an antitrust exemption for
insurance companies."
Subsequently, on January 22, Representative Paul Gosar (R- Ariz.),
who was a practicing dentist for many years, introduced similar
McCarran repeal legislation, entitled the "Competitive Health
Insurance Reform Act of 2015" (H.R. 494). Representative
Gosar's bill would only eliminate the exemption as to health
insurers. In introducing his legislation, Representative Gosar
stated that "Since the passage of Obamacare, the health
insurance market has expanded into one of the least transparent and
most anti-competitive industries in the United States," and
that there is "no reason in law, policy or logic for the
insurance industry to have a special exemption" from the
antitrust laws.
Both H.R. 99 and H.R. 494 have been referred to the House
Judiciary Committee for further action. Whether these bills will
gain traction this Congress remains to be seen, but the fact that
the bill has supporters on both sides of the aisle certainly
increases the chances that the legislation will, at a minimum, be
considered by the House Judiciary Committee (which failed to take
up similar legislation in the 113th Congress).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.