February 3rd, 2011 by BobDoherty in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
A Florida’s judge’s ruling that the Accountable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional doesn’t resolve the underlying constitutional issue (which will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) but it has introduced new uncertainty for the $2.3 trillion health care industry, and emboldened the law’s critics to push even harder for repeal (not that they weren’t trying already).
The Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) health blog reports that “states and companies that are supposed to be implementing the law trying to figure out what to do next. The WSJ reports that the 26 states that are parties to the suit are considering whether to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case now, before it has fully wended its way through the legal system. The New York Times (NYT) quotes the governor of Florida as saying that until the fate of the law is clear, “we’re not going to spend a lot of time and money” to implement it. Other states, even if part of the suit, will move ahead,” the NYT says. The WSJ also reports that most health care companies plan to “stay the course” and continue to plan for the law’s implementation. Meanwhile, the Obama administration says that the judge’s ruling will have no effect on the implementation of the law or the requirement that states (including those who brought the suit) comply with its mandates and claims that most constitutional experts agree with the administration.
Now, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t have any expertise on the legal arguments over the ACA’s constitutionality. For those of you who want to hear more about the constitutional questions from people who might actually know what they are talking about, I recommend this Health Care Blog post from attorney Mark Hall, a critic of the Florida judge’s ruling. He notes that “at least half of the relevant part of the opinion is devoted to discussing what Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson and other Founding Fathers would have thought about the individual mandate” (Judge Vinson concluded that they would not have approved of it) but “the same Founders wrote a Constitution that allowed the federal government to take property from unwilling sellers and passive owners, when needed to construct highways, bridges and canals.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein — a supporter of the Affordable Care Act — has posted an excellent overview of what legal experts are saying about the ruling, pro and con, including a link to a posting that argues Judge Vinson ruled correctly. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
January 11th, 2011 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy
No Comments »
[Soon] the new GOP-controlled House of Representatives will be voting on and is expected to pass a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — lock, stock, and barrel. There is virtually no chance the repeal bill will get through the Senate, though, which maintains a narrow Democratic majority, and President Obama would veto it if it did.
But let’s say that the seemingly impossible happened, and the ACA was repealed. What would the impact be on healthcare coverage, costs, and the federal deficit?
In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its preliminary estimates of the impact of repeal on the deficit, uninsured, and costs of care, and found that it would make the deficit worse, result in more uninsured persons, and higher premiums for many:
— Deficit: repeal of the ACA would increase the deficit by $145 billion from 2012-2019, by another $80 to $90 billion over the 2020-21 period, and by an amount “that is in the broad range of one-half percent of the GDP” in the decade after 2019* — or about a trillion dollars. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
September 2nd, 2010 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
One of the more surprising twists and turns in the continuing debate over healthcare reform is that many physicians who now object to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were just a few years back advocates for more federal regulation. In fact, in the early 2000s, more than 200 “provider” and consumer groups — including many state medical and national medical specialty societies that now oppose the ACA because of concerns about “excessive regulation” — were among the fiercest champions of federal legislation to mandate that health insurers comply with a Patient Bill of Rights.
A bipartisan bill introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would have ensured that patients have the “right” to appeal insurance company denials to independent reviewers, to choose a specialist of their choice, and to access emergency room services when needed. This effort to enact a federal Patient Bill of Rights failed, because of opposition from the insurance industry and President George W. Bush.
I bring up this history lesson because most of the key provisions in the McCain-Kennedy bill are now the law of the land, thanks to the ACA. Yet instead of applauding the new protections, many of the same physician organizations who called for a federal patient bill of rights now want to “repeal” the same consumer protections established by the ACA. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
August 9th, 2010 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
One of the more effective criticisms of the health reform law (Affordable Care Act, or ACA) is that it hurts Medicare. It also is wrong.
Effective, in that it has been widely reported that seniors are more likely to express negative views of the ACA than other age groups. (Although the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Drew Altman, citing the group’s most recent tracking polls, writes that seniors’ opposition to health reform “is at least somewhat over played.”)
Effective, but wrong: The ACA actually helps Medicare in three important ways. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
May 24th, 2010 by Shadowfax in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
2 Comments »
There’s just so much hidden and buried in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that it’s like trying the find all the goodies in an Easter egg hunt. ACEP News pointed out one hidden goodie, nicely illustrated in this article from Kaiser Health News:
Under the new health law, insurance companies must extend several new protections to patients who receive emergency care. One of the biggest guarantees: Patients who need emergency treatment will have their costs covered at the same rate, regardless of whether they are treated at “in-network” or “out-of-network” hospitals.
The law also bars health plans from requiring prior authorization for emergency services. And it mandates that plans follow the “prudent layperson” rule. For example, if a person goes to the ER with chest pain, but ends up being diagnosed with indigestion, the claim has to be covered because going to the hospital under those circumstances made sense.
The provisions go into effect for every health plan issued after Sept. 23 – six months after the law was enacted — that offers emergency coverage.
This is potentially quite significant. As with so many things, the devil is in the details, and the implementation is not yet actualized. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
