The Game’s Not Over, and It May Not Even Be The Real Game

Brian Klepper

Posted 6/29/12 on Medscape Connect’s Care and Cost Blog

ImageLike most health law watchers, I was surprised by yesterday’s decision. I’m sure that on this issue, as with everything else, zealous responses will rationalize the result and split the country down the middle.

I expected the Court to be purely partisan, but apparently Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged the gravity of his role and saw his way clear to support the law with some constraints. Here’s the comment from SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog: 

Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial – feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.

Continue reading “The Game’s Not Over, and It May Not Even Be The Real Game”

My Take On State Health Insurance Exchanges – Part 1

Kenneth Lin

Posted 4/12/12 on Common Sense Family Doctor

Regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate or the entire 2010 health reform law in June, state-based health insurance exchanges are a good idea and, if established, should benefit many working Americans who are too well-off to qualify for Medicaid but unable to otherwise afford health insurance coverage on their own. This post and two to follow over the next week are excerpts from an unpublished paper that I recently authored on this topic.

**

One of the key elements of the insurance coverage expansion contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the establishment of health benefits exchanges operated by individual states, groups of states, or the federal government, by January 1, 2014. These exchanges will offer competitive and/or subsidized insurance options for individuals whose employers do not provide insurance, as well as offer plans to small businesses (up to 100 employees) at reasonable rates. Prior to the ACA, Massachusetts and Utah had both operated state insurance exchanges with varying degrees of success. By outlining only basic requirements for the functions of the exchanges, the ACA left many important questions regarding their design unanswered. Some states appear to be pursuing a “wait and see” strategy, hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down the ACA prior to the January 2013 deadline for showing sufficient progress toward establishing an exchange or ceding control to the federal government. Others are at various stages of the planning process; as of January 2012, 13 states had formally established their exchanges through legislation or executive orders. Maryland and California are at the vanguard of this group.

Continue reading “My Take On State Health Insurance Exchanges – Part 1”

The Supreme Court and the Mathless Health Care Reform Debate

Eugene Steuerle

Posted 4/10/12 on The Government We Deserve

Regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the health care debate is now reignited. If the mandate is sustained, the Accountable Care Act enacted under President Obama still has too many kinks to remain unaltered. If it’s thrown out, a return to the unsustainable system with growing numbers of uninsured is not a solution. Yet no fix is possible as long as elected officials dodge the basic arithmetic of health care.

As for the individual mandate, ignore the constitutional briefs for the moment. Ignore also how a mandate helps address problems that arise if insurance companies must offer coverage regardless of prior conditions and people otherwise are tempted to wait until they are sick to buy it. Instead, let’s see how a mandate fits it into the broader arithmetic of paying for health care.

Continue reading “The Supreme Court and the Mathless Health Care Reform Debate”

Day Three – The Wrap Up

Merrill Goozner

Posted 3/29/12 on Gooz News

This is what conservative justices will do if they strike down or cripple the health-care law … A court that gave us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology. now  – E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post

The insurance mandate was effectively reduced to a bumper sticker by the opponents in their constitutional challenge, and the entire law reduced to little more than an appendage to the mandate. . . The fate of the mandate should not determine the survival of the other elements of the law — like prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging them higher fees — which can operate without the mandate. – New York Times editorial

Overturning the whole law would be an act of judicial restraint. – The Wall Street Journal editorial

Continue reading “Day Three – The Wrap Up”

If the Supreme Court Overturns the Individual Mandate

Robert Laszewski

 Posted 3/28/12 on Health Policy and Marketplace Review

First, trying to predict how the Court will rule is at best just speculation. I know what Justice Kennedy said both today and yesterday and it certainly doesn’t look good for the Obama administration and upholding at least the mandate.

But I will remind everyone, based upon oral arguments, most Court watchers expected a ruling in favor of the biotech industry on a recent case involving health care patents. “Surprisingly,” the Court ruled against the industry.

Continue reading “If the Supreme Court Overturns the Individual Mandate”

The Mandate May Fall, But Not Reform

Merrill Goozner

Posted 3/24/12 on Gooz News

Opponents of health care reform, whose case will be heard next week by the Supreme Court, base their complaint against the Obama administration’s signature domestic achievement on the claim that its individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

Challengers, including state attorneys general and governors in a majority of states, say it represents an unwarranted extension of the constitution’s commerce clause into the personal realm of individual choice. If people do not want to buy a particular product – in this case health insurance – the government has no right to make them.

Continue reading “The Mandate May Fall, But Not Reform”

Defending the Affordable Care Act

Merrill Goozner

Posted 3/14/12 on Gooz News

What will they do? The Supreme Court (more or less) that gave us Bush v Gore in 2000 will later this month hear arguments by states challenging the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. health care reform. The heart of the legal challenge raised by conservative state attorneys general is whether the individual mandate is constitutional. What happens if the Supremes say no? Does the entire law fall, or just the mandate?

The issue for lawyers is called “severability.” Did Congress when passing the law believe the mandate was necessary to the smooth functioning of the rest of the law? Clearly there are large swaths of the law for which the mandate is largely irrelevant: the physician payments sunshine act (disclosure of drug company payments to doctors); the creation of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to conduct comparative effectiveness research; the numerous payment pilot projects; and more.

Continue reading “Defending the Affordable Care Act”