The Kaiser Foundation reports that instead of as part of health reform, the House is going to move forward on revoking the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry under the long standing McCarran Ferguson Act.  Although there is nothing particularly wrong with such a move, for the most part it is pretty meaningless.  I can't recall a single case in which the immunity made any difference an antitrust action against an insurer.  Although it has been cited in many cases, for the most part, the courts have used to immunity to justify decisions that they would have reached anyway.  E.g. Ocean State Physicians Health Plan v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 883 F.2d 1101 (1st Cir.1989).  The problem with touting revocation of McCarran Ferguson is that provides an excuse for not doing anything meaningful.  The most likely effect of revocation would be to encourage an increase in frivolous antitrust cases, while doing nothing to reduce health care costs or expand coverage.  Far more important than McCarran Ferguson would be to eliminate barriers to interstate competition among insurers.  But that would actually require some thoughtfulness and legislative initiative.