Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-540_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

plans in particular ways, such as by requiring payment of 
specific benefits, Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85 
(1983), or by binding plan administrators to specific rules 
for determining beneficiary status, Egelhoff, 532 U. S. 141.  
A  state  law  may  also  be  subject  to  pre-emption  if  “acute, 
albeit  indirect,  economic  effects  of  the  state  law  force  an 
ERISA plan to adopt a certain scheme of substantive cover-
age.”  Gobeille, 577 U. S., at 320 (internal quotation marks 
omitted).    As  a  shorthand  for  these  considerations,  this 
Court asks whether a state law “governs a central matter 
of plan administration or interferes with nationally uniform 
plan administration.”  Ibid. (internal quotation marks and 
ellipsis omitted).  If it does, it is pre-empted. 
  Crucially, not every state law that affects an ERISA plan 
or causes some disuniformity in plan administration has an 
impermissible connection with an ERISA plan.  That is es-
pecially so if a law merely affects costs.  In New York State 
Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers 
Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645 (1995), this Court addressed a New 
York law that imposed surcharges of up to 13% on hospital 
billing  rates  for  patients  covered  by  insurers  other  than 
Blue  Cross/Blue  Shield  (Blues).    Plans  that  bought  insur-
ance from the Blues therefore paid less for New York hos-
pital services than plans that did not.  This Court presumed 
that the surcharges would be passed on to insurance buy-
ers, including ERISA plans, which in turn would incentiv-
ize ERISA plans to choose the Blues over other alternatives 
in New York.  Id., at 659.  Nevertheless, the Court held that 
such an “indirect economic influence” did not create an im-
permissible  connection  between  the  New  York  law  and 
ERISA plans because it did not “bind plan administrators 
to  any  particular  choice.”    Ibid.    The  law  might  “affect  a 
plan’s shopping decisions, but it [did] not affect the fact that 
any plan will shop for the best deal it can get.”  Id., at 660.  
If a plan wished, it could still provide a uniform interstate 
benefit package.  Ibid.