Maryland lawmakers "should spare the state another round of ... [an] ill-advised battle" with Wal-Mart Stores through the reintroduction of legislation that would require the company to increase spending on health care for employees, a Washington Post editorial states (Washington Post, 7/24). The law, enacted on Jan. 12, would have required employers in Maryland with 10,000 or more employees to spend at least 8% of payroll costs on health care or contribute to a state fund for the uninsured. Wal-Mart was the only employer in Maryland affected by the law. Last week, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled that the Maryland law violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 7/21). According to the editorial, "Maryland's state lawmakers thought they were David fighting Goliath this year when they passed a law aimed at Wal-Mart's Stores' employment polices," but Motz ruled that "David missed his shot." The editorial adds that Maryland lawmakers should not reintroduce the legislation, regardless of whether they can draft a legally viable version, because legislation that targets one company "is a misuse of governmental power" and has "nothing to do with solving the problem of rising state health care costs." Maryland lawmakers should "responsibly address rising health care costs," rather than "preying selectively on its large employers," the editorial states (Washington Post, 7/24).

"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.