204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10277971)
1. State laws have big impact on benefits: Minnesota Solons considering nearly 50 bills.
Spencer BF
Employee Benefit Plan Rev; 1975 Jun; 29(12):22, 24, 26. PubMed ID: 10277971
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Application of coverage and mandatory benefits requirements to ERISA health benefits plans.
Dechene JC
J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Dec; 21(12):321-6. PubMed ID: 10290864
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. High court upholds state-mandated benefits; other coverage may be hurt.
Geisel J
Mod Healthc; 1985 Jul; 15(14):124. PubMed ID: 10271967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Small employers and benefit mandates.
Thompson R
Bus Health; 1990 Aug; 8(8):52-3. PubMed ID: 10105876
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Mandated coverage: an employer debate.
Rasmussen B
Bus Health; 1987 Apr; 4(6):12-4. PubMed ID: 10281225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. State variation in insurance laws a major driver of employers' self-insurance decisions.
DeFrancesco L
Find Brief; 2004 Feb; 7(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 14959747
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. State laws and retiree benefits raise legal obstacles to cost reform.
Gage LS; Bortz WK
Bus Health; 1984 Jun; 1(7):44-5. PubMed ID: 10266359
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Congress considers spousal benefits bills.
Geisel J
Bus Insur; 1985 Sep; 19(39):2, 58. PubMed ID: 10273699
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Industry confronts expensive mandated health benefits bills.
Weinstein J
Restaurants Inst; 1989 Sep; 99(24):24. PubMed ID: 10295744
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 'Section 89' could mean big changes in employee benefits.
Health Ind Today; 1989 May; 52(5):26. PubMed ID: 10293314
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Providers worry about high cost, limited coverage of national health insurance plan.
Tokarski C
Mod Healthc; 1988 Mar; 18(11):28. PubMed ID: 10286070
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. COBRA: continuation of health benefits for employees; snake in the grass to employers.
Jaffe NO; Spacapan E
Empl Benefits J; 1988 Mar; 13(1):2-12. PubMed ID: 10285989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. ERISA preemption of state mandated-provider laws.
McDonough RS
Duke Law J; 1985 Dec; (6):1194-216. PubMed ID: 10276650
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Recent developments in employee benefits law.
Rose JG; Adler A
Tort Trial Insur Pract Law J; 2005; 40(2):345-68. PubMed ID: 15881784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Closing the gap. Section 89 helps ensure that employers provide comparable benefits to all.
Mason K
Bus Health; 1988 Apr; 5(6):8-12. PubMed ID: 10286742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); amendment on elimination of nonavailability statement where primary insurance covers 75 percent of the cost--Office of the Secretary of Defense. Final rule.
Fed Regist; 1982 May; 47(91):20122-3. PubMed ID: 10255458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. ERISA plans to permit assignment of benefits to physicians.
IMJ Ill Med J; 1988 Feb; 173(2):74. PubMed ID: 2895085
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. States increasing their regulation of health plans' benefits, eligibility rules.
Kosterlitz J
Natl J (Wash); 1985 Dec; 17(51-52):2913-5. PubMed ID: 10274942
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: its impact on employee benefits.
Shultz PT; Klein JP
Employee Relat Law J; 1982-1983 Winter; 8(3):519-25. PubMed ID: 10259907
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Insurers protest state-mandated health benefits.
Geisel J
Bus Insur; 1985 Mar; 19(9):3, 43. PubMed ID: 10270040
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
