one of the myths in this debate is that unless the Federal Government preempts State insurance laws, somehow millions of Americans will be unprotected in their disputes with HMOs. That is simply untrue. Ironically, my friend from Connecticut makes the point on emergency room care. Forty-four States have enacted legislation guaranteeing access to the nearest emergency room. But they have crafted their laws in different ways depending on the needs of those States. Why should the Federal Government second-guess those laws, substitute its judgment for the judgment of State legislators and Governors' offices all over this country? It does not make sense. The proposal of the Senator from Louisiana would be both burdensome to States and ineffective for consumers. Does anyone really believe that a consumer with a problem with his or her insurance policy is better off calling the HCFA office in Baltimore than dealing with their own State bureau of insurance? The States have more than 50 years of experience in regulating insurance. They have acted without any prod or mandate from Washington to enact good, strong patient protection laws. Let's honor their work. Let's build upon the good works of the States rather than preempting, second-guessing, and superseding their laws.
On the recordJune 28, 2001
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the role of state versus federal regulation in health insurance during a debate.
Share
More from Susan Collins
Jul 21, 2026
the fact remains that there are must-pay bills and urgent requirements facing the department that affect the ability of our troops to be well trained and more broadly of the U.S. military to deter and defend against potential aggressors…
Aug 7, 2026
Obviously, I'm disappointed in that decision, which turned abortion issues back to the states. It has not had an impact on the state of Maine.
Jul 27, 2026
I took particular issue with the provision that would allow political appointees to review grant proposals, noting that it would undermine the goal of awarding funds 'based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.'





