Congress, Courts, and Commerce: Upholding the Individual Mandate to Protect the Public's Health

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. Hodge ◽  
Erin C. Fuse Brown ◽  
Daniel G. Orenstein ◽  
Sarah O'Keefe
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
Attorneys General ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Federal District Courts

Despite historic efforts to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, national health reform is threatened by multiple legal challenges grounded in constitutional law. Premier among these claims is the premise that PPACA’s “individual mandate” (requiring all individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face civil penalties) is constitutionally infirm. Attorneys General in Virginia and Florida (joined by 25 other states) allege that Congress’ interstate commerce powers do not authorize federal imposition of the individual mandate because Congress lacks the power to regulate commercial “inactivity.” Stated simply, Congress cannot regulate individuals who choose not to obtain health insurance because they are not engaged in a commercial venture. Several courts initially considering this argument have rejected it, but two federal district courts in Virginia and Florida have concurred, leading to numerous appeals and the near promise of United States Supreme Court review.

Religious Exemptions to the PPACA's Health Insurance Mandate

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 624-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel T. Grover
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
Insurance Mandate ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Circuit Courts

Arguably the most controversial change to the U.S. healthcare system written into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA” or the “Act”) is what has been colorfully termed the Act’s “individual mandate,” the provision that establishes tax penalties for those who do not maintain health insurance in 2014 and beyond. Though the health insurance mandate does not go into effect until 2014, it has already faced numerous constitutional challenges in district and circuit courts, with entirely inconsistent results. Conflicting decisions regarding the Act’s constitutionality at the circuit court level cry out for Supreme Court review. But while the individual mandate’s validity under either the Commerce Clause or Congress’s taxing power has been the focal point of litigation thus far, another aspect of the individual mandate may undermine the goal of establishing universal, affordable healthcare coverage for all Americans. As currently written, the religious conscience exemption from the PPACA’s individual mandate threatens the efficacy of the Act and potentially exposes it to legal challenges under the Constitution’s Religion Clauses.

Presidential Proclamation Indefinitely Restricting Entry of Individuals from Designated Countries Is Fully Implemented Amid Ongoing Legal Challenges

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Recent Version ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the most recent version of President Trump's executive action restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries to take effect. The decision stayed nationwide injunctions granted by two federal district courts on constitutional and statutory grounds. This version of Trump's “travel ban,” (EO-3), issued on September 24, 2017, restricts the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—all of whom had been restricted under previous orders—as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. While litigation continues in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Trump administration fully implemented EO-3 by December 8.

The Individual Mandate: Implications for Public Health Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Parmet
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Universal Coverage ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Sick People ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Death Spiral ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
The Individual

No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has proven to be more contentious than the so-called “individual mandate.” Starting in 2014, the mandate will impose a penalty on non-exempt individuals who lack health insurance. According to Congress, the mandate is essential to ensuring near universal coverage. Without it, PPACA’s insurance reforms will lead healthy individuals to delay purchasing health insurance until they require medical care, resulting in risk pools with a disproportionate share of high-risk people. The price of insurance will then climb, causing more and more not-so-sick people to forego health insurance. The resulting “death spiral” will make insurance unaffordable to many more Americans.

scholarly journals Health Reform and the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Lee ◽  
Deena Kelly ◽  
Matthew D. McHugh
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Health Reform ◽  
Access To Health Care ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Health Insurance Coverage ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
The Individual

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 is landmark legislation designed to expand access to health care for virtually all legal U.S. residents. A vital but controversial provision of the ACA requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or face a tax penalty—the individual mandate. We examine the constitutionality of the individual mandate by analyzing relevant court decisions. A critical issue has been defining the “activities” Congress is authorized to regulate. Some judges determined that the mandate was constitutional because the decision to go without health insurance, that is, to self-insure, is an activity with substantial economic effects within the overall scheme of the ACA. Opponents suggest that Congress overstepped its authority by regulating “inactivity,” that is, compelling people to purchase insurance when they otherwise would not. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the issues and the final ruling will shape the effectiveness of health reform.

If We Can Force People to Purchase Health Insurance, Then Let's Force Them to Be Treated Too

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 397-409
Author(s):  
Marshall B. Kapp
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Major Development ◽  
Insurance Mandate ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Foreign Commerce ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

Proponents of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) justify the Act's mandate that uninsured individuals either purchase a minimally defined health insurance policy (“Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage”) or pay a fine, as a necessary and proper exercise of Congress's express constitutional power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The United States Supreme Court will decide the correctness of that highly debatable position during its spring 2012 session.Assuming, without by any means predicting, that the validity of all parts of the PPACA—including the individual insurance mandate—is upheld, the Court's (likely multiple) opinions will constitute a major development in the evolution of American constitutional jurisprudence, even if Congress subsequently repeals specific sections of the legislation. Several commentators have expressed concern about the ramifications of a judicially validated PPACA for attempts by the government, especially through the mechanism of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER), to limit or ration particular forms of potentially beneficial medical care for some or all patients.

State-Run Insurance Exchanges in Federal Healthcare Reform: A Case Study in Dysfunctional Federalism

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 548-569
Author(s):  
Kyle Thomson
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Small Business ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Healthcare Reform ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Insurance Exchanges

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, resulting in the most sweeping reform of the healthcare marketplace and one of the largest expansions in access to healthcare in American history. A key component to both restructuring the healthcare marketplace and improving access are the health insurance exchanges contained in the ACA. Today, individual and small group purchasers have difficulty finding affordable health insurance in the marketplace because they lack the tools to gather information about plans and because they lack the bargaining power to negotiate for affordable rates the way large purchasers can. In conjunction with the individual mandate, the health insurance exchanges aim to solve inefficiencies in the current marketplace by creating a centralized venue to connect insurers with individual and small business purchasers. Thus it both creates a place for insurers to readily find customers, who are now guaranteed to be there because of the individual mandate, and provides a place for customers to shop for insurance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document