Premiums in Medicaid: The (not so) Recent Trend

By Emma Sandoe

Requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to pay premiums and other cost-sharing for medical services is not new to the Medicaid expansion debate. Premiums were introduced as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Previously, states were prohibited from imposing enrollment fees, premiums, or deductibles for any categorically eligible individual in the Medicaid program. This law allowed states to implement minimal cost-sharing for waiver demonstrations, but prohibited states from denying medical care due to an inability to pay.

Since this law was passed, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has clarified that certain populations including pregnant women and children were exempt from most cost-sharing. Additionally, certain services are exempt from copayments and coinsurance entirely. The maximum amount that can be charged varies based on wage and type of service and where the beneficiary seeks treatment.

Prior to Indiana’s 1115, approved in 2014, CMS did not allow state waivers to charge premiums to individuals making under 50% of the federal poverty line (FPL). Indiana’s expansion plan is unlike any other state’s waiver plans. It requires individuals to pay a “monthly contribution” of $1 a month or 2% of a family’s income which ever is greater. When a beneficiary that has been paying these monthly contributions uses medical services, they are not required to pay co-payments. Previously, Indiana lowered the income eligibility for premiums during its 2013 waiver when it required premiums for individuals making between 50-100% of FPL. Arkansas and Iowa saw that precedent set by Indiana and lowered their cost sharing levels from 100% of FPL to 50%. Continue reading

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Physician Coverage under the ACA

By Elizabeth Guo

A recent study in JAMA by Dorner, Jacobs, and Sommers released some good and bad news about provider coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The study examined whether health plans offered on the federal marketplace in 34 states offered a sufficient number of physicians in nine specialties. For each plan, the authors searched for the number of providers covered under each specialty in each state’s most populous county. Plans without specialist physicians were labeled specialist-deficient plans. The good: roughly 90% of the plans covered more than five providers in each specialty. The bad: 19 plans were specialist-deficient and 9 of 34 states had at least one specialty deficient plan. Endocrinology, psychiatry, and rheumatology were the most commonly excluded specialties.

Here’s where it gets ugly.

Excluding certain specialists from coverage can be a way for insurers to discriminate against individuals with certain conditions by excluding them from their plans. By excluding rheumatologists, insurers may prevent enrolling individuals with rheumatoid arthritis; by excluding endocrinologists, insurers may prevent enrolling individuals with diabetes. Individuals with chronic conditions need to see specialists more frequently than healthier adults, and how easily a patient with chronic conditions can see a specialist can affect his health care outcomes.

The study adds to the growing body of empirical research showing that even after the ACA, insurers may be structuring their plans to potentially discriminate against individuals with significant chronic conditions. In January, Jacobs and Sommers published a study showing that some plans were discriminating against patients with HIV/AIDS through adverse tiering by placing all branded and generic HIV/AIDS drugs on the highest formulary tier. Another study found that 86% of plans place all medicines in at least one class on the highest cost-sharing tier. These studies show that despite being on a health plan, individuals with certain chronic conditions may still have trouble accessing essential treatments and services. Continue reading

House of Reps v. Burwell: A Case Worth Following

By Matthew Ryan, Harvard Health Law Society

With the final judgment in King v. Burwell this summer upholding federal subsidies for health insurance, many legal analysts believed that lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act had ended. But the House of Representatives had other plans. In July of 2014, the House of Representatives voted on partisan lines to sue President Obama for overstepping his constitutional bounds. The House alleged that the President did not faithfully execute the Affordable Care Act with regard to two executive actions. First, the Obama Administration authorized payments to insurance companies to assist with cost sharing. The House argued Congress never appropriated these funds. Second, the House alleged that the Obama Administration unlawfully delayed the employer mandate at a $12 billion cost to taxpayers.

In September, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia cleared a major hurdle for the House: the court granted standing to the plaintiffs for their challenge to the Administration authorizing cost sharing funds without Congressional appropriation. The court did not grant standing with regards to the employer mandate implementation. Continue reading

China to Reform Review and Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices

China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), the country’s legislature, will hold a meeting from October 30 to November 4 to review the authorization of the State Council, the central government, to carry out a pilot program that will introduce market authorization holder of drug (MAH) system and reform the drug registration system. On August 9, the State Council issued the Opinions on Reforming Review and Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices (RAP Opinions). Since several key reform measures initiated by the RAP Opinions involve amendments to China’s Drug Administration Law, the State Council must receive the authorization of the NPC. If the authorization is approved by the NPC, the reform of China’s RAP will be accelerated.

The direct pressure for reform comes from the very serious backlog for RAP in China. As of August, there was a backlog of 21,000 applications, and large backlogs have appeared repeatedly in the past decade. For example, there was a backlog of 17,000 in 2005 and a backlog of 27,000 in 2008. These backlogs attract more and more criticism, both from companies and patients. Patients, unable to benefit from a new drug, especially those made by foreign companies and that have proven successful and effective in other territories, have suffered. Some patients have to either rely on  smuggled drugs or conduct expensive medical tourism. Now, the State Council seems determined to reform the broken RAP system completely, with the following key reforms:

Continue reading

The Once and Future Cadillac Tax

cadillacOver the last few weeks, health economists have been defending the often politically friendless “Cadillac Tax.” This policy, as part of the Affordable Care Act, will begin taxing certain generous health insurance plans starting in 2018. Since World War II, the IRS has held that employer-sponsored health insurance should not been taxed, costing the federal government $329 billion in lost federal revenue. But, the most pivotal decision in the tax exemption status of employer-sponsored health insurance took place in 1954, not during World War II.

In 1954, when Congress extended the World War II provisions into permanent tax law, Congress decided to do away with the limits imposed on the tax-free status of health insurance. In essence, Congress has already repealed the Cadillac tax back when you could buy a new Cadillac for $5,000.

The Introduction of the Tax:

As part of the World War II price and wage controls, President Roosevelt’s National War Labor Board first put limits on wage increases and would not allow wages to increase greater than 15 percent of 1941 rates. Enterprising employers began offering health insurance coverage to recruit workers, because enticing workers with higher wages was not permitted. This forced the hand of the Board to address the tax status of health insurance.

Continue reading

Which state will be the next to expand Medicaid?

The last week has yielded significant progress in several states currently debating Medicaid expansion. Thirty-one states and DC have already expanded the program, made an option for states due to the Supreme Court’s NFIB v Sebelius decision. Many state legislatures are coming back into session from summer recesses bringing into focus discussions on the budget implications of Medicaid. Additionally, as we approach a looming Presidential election with expected high voter turnout, politicians have an opportunity to push for the expansion to gain support from certain stakeholders. While significant action is needed in each of these states before any Medicaid expansion legislation is passed or their governors act to implement their plans, it is worth keeping an eye on all of these states in the coming months.

Utah- It has been over a year and a half since Governor Herbert announced his support for Medicaid expansion. This week, details of the new plan, UtahAccess+, have been released. The plan, formulated by the Governor and Republican legislative leaders, is similar to the Healthy Utah plan that was passed the Utah Senate but was struck down in the House with the exception of the financing model which puts the burden on providers that would benefit from additional funds through expansion.

Louisiana- This is one of the more surprising states to appear on a list of upcoming states to expand Medicaid, however the tides may be shifting in this largely conservative state. Louisiana is in the process of electing a new governor as Presidential candidate Bobby Jindal is ineligible due to term limits. All four candidates have indicated some level of support for expansion (to varying degrees) since April. These candidates’ positions reflect the push by business groups in the state which have called for expansion, as well as the recent legislative change that gave the new governor the necessary state authority to expand in the first months in office.

Continue reading

Presidential Campaigns Focus on Drug Costs

By Katherine Kwong

Drug prices have become a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail following recent stories such as the sudden spike in price from $13.50 to $750 for the parasitic infection treatment Daraprim. This story is the latest example of a growing number of complaints about steep increases and high prices for many drugs, including those used to treat multiple sclerosis and cancer, as well as commonly-used generic drugs used to treat everything from high cholesterol to bacterial infections.

In contrast with the Republican presidential candidates, who have generally not supported additional government regulation of drug pricing, Democratic presidential candidates responded to the Daraprim story by urging greater government action to lower drug costs.

Hillary Clinton cited Daraprim as an example when unveiling a proposal to cap drug costs to $250 per month, require pharmaceutical companies to spend a minimum amount on research and development, and allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. She would also end tax credits for drug advertising to consumers and allow the importation of drugs from other countries.

Continue reading

Medicaid Is Not a Welfare Program

Medicaid is often thought of as a welfare program because of the essential role it plays in providing health insurance for low-income people. However, looks can be deceiving. In terms of scale and scope, Medicaid is rapidly becoming a powerhouse player in health care.

Medicaid enrollment is booming as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): nearly 72 million people are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To put this in perspective, about 55 million people are enrolled in Medicare and about 64 million in the UK’s NHS. Medicaid enrollment is likely to continue rising as more states contemplate expansion. As of this month, 30 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

Size isn’t the only way Medicaid is changing. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is a joint state and federal program, which means that states have a lot of latitude to innovate with both delivery and payment. The ACA has enhanced opportunity for reform through planned initiatives like the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and unexpected pathways, like negotiations around Medicaid expansion – these have yielded some of the most radical departures from the traditional public program paradigm, even in states that have not sought a “private option

Continue reading

RFRA Jumps The Shark: The 8th Circuit Strikes Down the Contraception Accommodation (Part 2)


Flickr/Creative Commons – Bill Ward

By Gregory M. Lipper

Thomas Jefferson famously said that “[i]t does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Note what Jefferson did not say: “my neighbor is entitled to pick my pocket and break my leg, so long as the government can refill my pocket and pay for a cast on my leg.”

But the latter formulation seemed to influence last week’s Eighth Circuit ruling that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) bars the government from implementing an accommodation for employers with religious objections to including contraception in their health plans. In my previous post, I explained why the Eighth Circuit reduced RFRA’s substantial-burden requirement to a mere formality, potentially subjecting any and every federal law or regulation to strict scrutiny. Once things get to strict scrutiny, the Eighth Circuit goes even further, suggesting that a federal regulation cannot be sustained if the government could, in theory, provide the benefit or service itself.

The Eighth Circuit first applied this approach to the process by which employers obtain the religious exemption. Under the current rules, an objecting organization need only send a written notice to the government and identify its insurance provider or third-party administrator; the government then works with the insurance provider or third-party administrator to arrange for the employees to receive the contraceptive coverage to which they are entitled by law.

The Eighth Circuit, however, reasoned that there is a less-restrictive alternative to requiring this information, since the government could identify the necessary insurance providers and third-party administrators on its own—well, maybe: “Even if the [third-party administrators] are not known, the government has not shown at this stage of the proceedings that the inconvenience of identifying the [third-party administrators] likely would create an administrative problem of sufficient magnitude to make its entire scheme unworkable.” According to the Eighth Circuit, then, no disclosure requirement can be sustained unless the government can prove that it would be unable to discover the information after its own investigation.

Continue reading

RFRA Jumps The Shark: The 8th Circuit Strikes Down the Contraception Accommodation (Part 1)

Flickr/Creative Commons – Bill Ward

Flickr/Creative Commons – Bill Ward

By Gregory M. Lipper

On Thursday, the Eighth Circuit all but assured that major parts of the Affordable Care Act will return to the Supreme Court’s chopping block. This time the issue is whether an accommodation—enabling religious objectors to opt out of offering contraceptive coverage to their employees—itself violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Eighth Circuit ruled for the plaintiffs in Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with a companion case brought by Dordt College. The court concluded that the accommodation substantially burdened plaintiffs’ religious exercise and that the accommodation was not the least-restrictive means of ensuring that the plaintiffs’ employees had contraceptive coverage.

The Eighth Circuit’s substantial-burden ruling is unprecedented. Indeed, the contraception coverage cases appear to be the first time that exempted entities have sued to prevent the government from implementing a religious exemption. Like the other nonprofit organizations challenging the contraception regulations, the plaintiffs in this case are not required to cover contraceptives. All they have to do is provide written notice (to either their plan administrator or the Department of Health and Human Services) that they object to providing contraceptive coverage and wish to opt out. Once they provide that notice, the government arranges for the plan administrator to arrange for contraceptive coverage—at no charge to either the plaintiffs or their employees.

The plaintiffs insist that by opting out of providing contraceptive coverage, they “indirectly provide, trigger, and facilitate that objectionable coverage through the … accommodation process.” Every other federal appeals court to have addressed these challenges—even courts as conservative as the Fifth Circuit—has rejected this argument. Indeed, the plaintiffs are being asked to do what they have already done voluntarily: state, in writing, that they object to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. And it is the HHS regulations, not the plaintiffs’ written notice, that facilitates the provision of contraceptive coverage to plaintiffs’ employees.

Continue reading

A Circuit Split on Contraceptives Coverage

Perhaps foreshadowed by the dissent in the 10th Circuit that I wrote about here, the 8th Circuit has now officially launched a circuit split regarding the legal validity of the accommodation that allows modified compliance/objection to the contraceptives coverage mandate.  Unlike the seven other circuits to have considered the question since Hobby Lobby, the 8th Circuit yesterday issued opinions upholding preliminary injunctions in two cases (here and here), thereby preventing the mandate+accommodation from being enforced against the objecting non-profits.

First, the 8th Circuit determined that the accommodation still substantially burdens objectors’ religious beliefs because it imposes significant financial penalties if they refuse to comply with a requirement that they view as violative of those religious beliefs. As I explained previously, I do think the court was right to focus on the monetary consequences of objection, rather than assuming that merely filing the required paperwork for an accommodation does not or cannot actually make objectors complicit in the way they claim it does.

Like SCOTUS in Hobby Lobby, the 8th Circuit then went on to assume that the contraceptives coverage mandate advances a compelling government interest, which is the next step in the analysis under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act once the substantial burden test is met.  So far, so good.  But that’s the end of my agreement.

Continue reading

Fiduciary Duty and the Payer-Provider Relationship

By Zack Buck

Even though the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has set an ambitious goal to move the reimbursement paradigm away from a fee-for-service model for half of all Medicare services by 2018, incentives built into the delivery of American health care that encourage and result in overtreatment remain. One recent illustration of the reimbursement incentives facing physicians to administer either more care, or more expensive care, is the Lucentis-Avastin example I blogged about here earlier this year.

My newest article, forthcoming in the California Law Review in 2016, examines another legal tool that could be employed to recalibrate the incentives in Medicare: fiduciary duty. Others have characterized the patient-physician relationship as being fiduciary in nature; this piece advocates for the extension of the metaphor to the payer-physician relationship. This move would introduce much-needed pressures on providers to limit or avoid excessive or expensive care by placing a duty of loyalty on providers owed to the payers of Medicare’s services–American taxpayers. This move would respect provider autonomy but provide remedies for overtreatment without substantially growing the regulatory scheme or expanding oversight costs. The abstract is available here.

Hell Hath No Fury Like An ACA Opponent Scorned


Flickr Creative Commons/Tabitha Kaylee Hawk

by Gregory M. Lipper

Over the weekend, Ted Cruz again lamented the role played by John Roberts in rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments in King v. Burwell, the recent attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court. After Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Supreme Court’s 6–3 opinion in the case, the emerging narrative in some conservative circles is that Roberts and his (apparently illegitimate) judicial restraint is to blame. Cruz said that “if [Edith] Jones and [Michael] Luttig had been on the court instead of Souter and Roberts, then the marriage laws in every state would still be on the books and Obamacare would not been law.” Apparently, the same Chief Justice who invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, went out of his way to reach the First Amendment question in Citizens United, and joined aggressive decisions targeting contraceptive coverage and labor unions is actually a passive Obama apologist who should never have been nominated.

That, I suppose, is one lesson to be learned. Another is that the King lawsuit was so obviously frivolous and nakedly political that even arch-conservative and Affordable Care Act skeptic John Roberts felt constrained to reject it.

Let’s review: in King v. Burwell, the plaintiffs argued that four words in the Affordable Care Act should be read in isolation to prevent the federal government from offering subsidies to those who lived in states that refused to create their own healthcare exchanges. They pressed this argument even though such a reading would have rendered the federal exchanges entirely illusory, stripped millions of Americans of health insurance, and produced the very death spiral the Act was supposed to prevent.

Commentators noted that the plaintiffs’ argument was reminiscent of “an old Amelia Bedelia story” and that it depended on the “Moops doctrine.” And those were the nice reviews. Others described the case as “cynically manufactured,” “mean-spirited,” and a “political challenge … dressed up in legal garb.” The plaintiffs’ counsel didn’t help matters by speaking about the companion case in rather political terms.

Continue reading

HHS’ Proposed Anti-Discrimination Regulations: Protective But Not Protective Enough

By Elizabeth Guo

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released a proposed rule implementing section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 applies the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the ACA so that a covered entity cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of a disability in any health program or activity. The proposed rule clarified how OCR intended to enforce and interpret section 1557’s nondiscrimination provision.

As Timothy Jost and other commentators have noted, the government’s proposed interpretation of section 1557 significantly expands the number of health entities that need to meet the Rehabilitation Act’s nondiscrimination requirements. The regulation proposes to encompass all entities that operate a health program or activity, any part of which receives federal financial assistance. The regulation then broadly interprets “federal financial assistance” to include “subsidies and contracts of insurance.” Thus, an insurer receiving premium tax credits or cost-sharing reduction payments through participating in a health insurance Marketplace would need to ensure that all its health plans meet the Rehabilitation Act’s nondiscrimination requirements, regardless of whether the plans are sold through the Marketplace, outside the Marketplace, or through an employee benefit plan. This broad interpretation means that the Rehabilitation Act’s nondiscrimination provisions will now apply to a number of previously excluded plans.

Expanding the number of plans needing to meet section 1557’s nondiscrimination requirements will provide greater protection to more individuals with disabilities. In the United States, the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Both acts protect disabled individuals, but courts have consistently interpreted only the Rehabilitation Act as prohibiting insurers from designing their health plans to discriminate against individuals with disabilities. On the other hand, courts have held that the ADA provides a safe harbor for insurers when designing their benefit plans. Thus, some insurers under the ADA may be able to exclude all drugs treating HIV/AIDS from their formulary or place all drugs treating HIV/AIDS on the highest cost-sharing tier, benefit designs that the Rehabilitation Act would likely prohibit. See also Kelsey Berry’s post on this topic.  Continue reading

Little Sisters: Cato Institute Targets the Affordable Care Act—Yet Again

By Gregory M. Lipper

Fresh off its unsuccessful attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell, the Cato Institute is back for more. This time, Cato has filed an amicus brief in support of Supreme Court review in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. This is one of the many, many (many) challenges brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by nonprofit organizations to an accommodation, offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), exempting religious nonprofits from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. To take advantage of the accommodation, nonprofits need only provide written notice to the government of their objection and the name of their insurance provider or plan administrator. At that point, the government arranges for the nonprofit organization’s insurance company or plan administrator to provide the coverage at no cost to the nonprofit or its employees.

These RFRA challenges to the nonprofit accommodation have been rejected by all seven federal appeals courts to address them. But in this brief backing the challenge by Little Sisters, Cato asks the Supreme Court to dodge the RFRA question entirely, claiming that the case “can be resolved without further engaging in the delicate analysis required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Instead, Cato makes the following argument: (1) in light of King v. Burwell’s statements about agency deference, HHS had no authority to offer religious accommodations to its own regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, and (2) without a religious accommodation, the contraceptive coverage requirement is unenforceable against nonprofit organizations with religious objections.

Cato seeks—in the name of religious liberty!—to prevent regulatory agencies from granting accommodations to entities with religious objections to regulations, and then argues that the absence of religious accommodation makes the underlying regulations unenforceable against religious objectors. Cato’s curious argument suffers from two serious flaws.

Continue reading

Call for Abstracts! 2016 Annual Conference: Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics

Close-up of fiber optic cables

The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce plans for our 2016 annual conference, entitled: “Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics.”  This year’s conference is organized in collaboration with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Health Ethics and Policy Lab, University of Zurich.

Conference Description

“Big Data” is a phrase that has been used pervasively by the media and the lay public in the last several years. While many definitions are possible, the common denominator seems to include the “three V’s” – Volume (vast amounts of data), Variety (significant heterogeneity in the type of data available in the set), and Velocity (speed at which a data scientist or user can access and analyze the data). Continue reading

Journal of Law and the Biosciences: Call for Harvard Student Submissions

JLB coverThe Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School collaborates with Stanford and Duke Universities to publish the Journal of Law and Biosciences  (Oxford University Press), an online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal. JLB includes a Notes & Developments section, comprised  of  brief summaries and commentary on recent legislation, regulation, and case law written by graduate students at the collaborating schools. The Petrie­Flom Center is responsible for providing the Notes & Developments for one issue per annual volume.

We are currently seeking Harvard graduate students to contribute papers to be published in JLB’s Notes & Developments section in early 2016. In previous years, Notes & Developments have been generated from scratch specifically for JLB, based on selection from submitted proposals. This year, we are taking a different approach by publishing already complete (or to-be-completed by the deadline) original student papers (such as student notes, course papers, etc.) written by graduate students from any Harvard school.  Notes & Developments are limited to 5000 words, including footnotes and references,  and  should  be  on  a  topic  of  relevance  to  law  and  the  biosciences,  in particular a topic of relatively recent concern, controversy, or change. They should focus on  describing  the  issue  at  hand,  explaining  why  it  is  relevant to scholars and practitioners, and providing analysis and questions for further consideration.

Interested students should submit their papers and CVs for consideration no later than September 7, 2015 (earlier  is  welcome). Up to four papers will be selected for publication in the New Developments section of JLB. Applicants will be notified by the end of September. Selected students will receive comments on their papers by the end of October, and will also be responsible for providing comments to the other selected students. Revisions will be due by the end of November, and final submissions to JLB will be due by the end of December 2015.

Please send all application materials, and direct all questions, to Holly Fernandez Lynch,

The 21st Century Cures Act, HIPAA, Big Data, and Medical Research

By Nicholson Price

The 21st Century Cures Act is a big deal; the House passed it handily, and we’re still waiting to see what the Senate does.  A lot has been written about what it does in terms of changing FDA review processes, and a fair bit about the lovely increase in funding for NIH (see Rachel Sachs’ blog posts here, here, and here).  These are tremendously important.

But another provision in the bill has been getting much less play: the way it changes HIPAA to enable large-scale research, which is also a big deal all by itself. Continue reading

Medical Device Tax: Back in the News Post-King

By Gregory Curfman

Just when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has won a second major Supreme Court victory in King v. Burwell, conservative critics of the ACA are back on the attack, this time directing their ire towards the medical device tax. Having lost the battle on subsidies, they are now focusing on the device tax as the prime target in their attempt to overturn parts of the ACA. This 2.3% excise tax levied on the medical device industry is stipulated as one of the tax provisions in the ACA. The rationale is that since the ACA provides coverage for many more people, thus bringing more business to the industry, it is reasonable to ask the industry to pay something back to support the programmatic mission of the ACA.

From the beginning, the medical device industry has strongly objected to the excise tax, claiming it will stifle innovation by taking away funds that would otherwise be used for new product research and development. For example, Dr. Thomas Stossel of Harvard Medical School, a conservative voice on health issues, recently wrote: “A 2.3 percent tax on sales can easily mean the difference between commercial success and bankruptcy: borderline profits become losses and investors flee to less risky ventures. Brute force taxes destabilize the fragile innovation ecosystem.” Continue reading

Onward And Upward For The ACA After King v. Burwell

Christie Hager, a speaker at the Petrie-Flom Center’s “King v. Burwell and the Future of the Affordable Care Act” conference on April 1 has a new piece up at the Health Affairs Blog discussing the Supreme Court’s decision. From the piece: 

Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion in King v. Burwell, confirmed that the only insurance spiral now is one onward and upward for the millions of Americans who will benefit from the peace of mind and protections of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.

Among the many benefits of the ACA, Exchanges have been operating in some form to increase coverage in every state since 2013. Millions of lives have been changed or saved as a result. Many legal theorists and Supreme Court observers are rightly praising the sound legal reasoning and Constitutional principles in action that led to upholding key aspects of the Affordable Care Act (again).

It is a stark example of the relationship among the three branches created by the Constitution: Legislative drafting and passage, Executive implementation, and Judicial interpretation of language that in this case may have been less than clear. Additionally, the practical implications of the Court’s decision also are particularly salient. […]

Read the full piece here.