Recovery and Preemption: The Collision of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and the Medical Device Amendments

Recovery and Preemption: The Collision of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and the Medical Device Amendments

Congress often uses its power to preempt state laws when a uniform nationwide regulatory environment is desirable. Unfortunately, preemption may have unintended, far-reaching effects. When Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (“MDA”), it included an express preemption clause to ensure that only the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) could establish ex ante, premarket requirements for medical devices, thus allowing the Agency to establish a uniform regulatory floor. Just four years later, Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP”), part of a series of amendments to the Medicare program designed to improve the program’s finances. The MSP included provisions that allow the United States to recover payments Medicare had made on behalf of its beneficiaries, by standing in the place of those beneficiaries in state tort actions against tortfeasors. These provisions gave Medicare broad authority to seek recovery from the manufacturers of defective medical devices when the program had paid for the devices. However, in many cases the express preemption clause of the MDA and the Supreme Court’s overly broad implied preemption jurisprudence preempt Medicare beneficiaries’ state law claims. Since Medicare’s ability to recover under the MSP is based on its beneficiaries’ rights, the MDA may also prevent Medicare from recovering under the MSP. This collision between two statutes drafted within four years of one another illustrates the unintended effects that a broad preemption doctrine may have. This Comment argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court need to review and narrow the reach of preemption under the MDA””without completely abandoning preemption””so that both the MDA and the MSP may serve the purposes Congress intended.


More in this Issue

Toxic Spring: The Capriciousness of Cost-Benefit Analysis Under FIFRA’s Pesticide Registration Process and Its Effect on Farmworkers

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must conduct a cost-benefit analysis to ascertain whether a pesticide may be sold on the market. This analysis weighs the benefits of using the pesticide against the costs imposed by the pesticide’s negative effects, such as health consequences for farmworkers, wild life, […]

Marital Supremacy and the Constitution of the Nonmarital Family

Despite a transformative half century of social change, marital status still matters. The marriage equality movement has drawn attention to the many benefits conferred in law by marriage at a time when the “marriage gap” between affluent and poor Americans widens and rates of nonmarital childbearing soar. This Essay explores the contested history of marital […]

Regulating Sex Work: Erotic Assimilationism, Erotic Exceptionalism, and the Challenge of Intimate Labor

Most commentators on sex markets focus on the debate between abolitionists and those who defend and support professional sex work. This Article, instead, looks at debates within the pro-sex-work camp, uncovering some unattended tensions and contradictions. Some within this camp stress the labor aspect, urging that sex markets perpetuate a “vulnerable population” of workers and […]

Stare Decisis in the Second-Best World

If judges disagree about the proper interpretation of the law, can they find common ground in the treatment of precedent? The doctrine of stare decisis weighs the value of legal continuity against the value of legal accuracy. But that analysis is complicated by pervasive disputes over the implications of legal error. Likewise, the scope of […]

Waiving Disqualification: When Do Securities Violators Receive a Reprieve?

In addition to considerable sanctions, criminal and civil securities enforcement actions trigger an array of collateral consequences. This Article studies automatic “bad-actor” and “ineligible-issuer” disqualifications, which bar disqualified firms from relying on relaxed disclosure and reporting requirements when raising external capital. First adopted in 1940, the disqualifications were primarily intended to reduce the risk of […]