Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Friday, 21 March 2014
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Virginia's Attack on Health Care Reform Individual Mandate in PPACA Heard by Fourth Circuit
RICHMOND, Va. - (Mealey's) The federal government argued before a panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 10 that a district court judge erred in finding that the individual mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional, while the Commonwealth of Virginia urged the court to find that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the act, so the entire thing must be declared unconstitutional (Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius, Nos. 11-1057 & 11-1058, 4th Cir.).
Please click here to read the entire post, 4th Circuit Considers Whether Individual Mandate Unconstitutional.
Lexis.com subscribers can access additional Heath Care Reform Resources, including our special Health Care Reform Special Alert. The two-volume Health Care Reform Special Alert publication may also be purchased at the Store.
Subscribers may access all of the Lexis.com Health Care Research Materials in one convenient location.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.
Health Care Reform Scores a Victory: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Individual Mandate Upheld by Sixth Circuit
CINCINNATI -- (Mealey's) The individual mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held June 29, (Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al., No. 10-2388, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13265, 6th Cir.), in affirming the dismissal of a case (Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882, E.D. Mich. 2010) challenging the act.
After finding that plaintiffs Thomas More Law Center, Jann DeMars, John Ceci, Steven Hyder and Salina Hyder had standing to bring their suit challenging the PPACA against President Obama and other federal defendants, the court affirmed an order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissing the case.
The plaintiffs had challenged the PPACA, alleging that Congress lacked authority under the commerce clause to pass the PPACA and seeking a declaration that the individual mandate provision contained in the act is unconstitutional. The individual mandate requires most Americans to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, starting in 2014.
Set against the PPACA's broader statutory scheme, "the minimum coverage provision reveals itself as a regulation on the activity of participating in the national market for health care delivery, and specifically the activity of self-insuring for the cost of these services," Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. wrote for the panel.
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, Judge Martin said that the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional for two reasons: The provision regulates economic activity that Congress has a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce, and Congress has a rational basis to believe that the provision is essential to a larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets of health care and health insurance.
"The minimum provision regulates activity that is decidedly economic," Judge Martin said.
The plaintiffs conceded that Congress has the power under the commerce clause to regulate the interstate markets in health care delivery and health insurance, and the PPACA uses this power to regulate prices and protect consumer by banning certain insurance industry practices that have prevented individuals from obtaining and maintaining insurance coverage, Judge Martin said.
Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to deliver the court's opinion as to the government's taxing power. The government had argued that Congress had an independent authority under its taxing power to pass the individual mandate.
The individual mandate is a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax for reasons including that Congress called the sanction for failing to obtain medical insurance a "penalty," not a tax and that legislative findings in the PPACA show that Congress invoked its commerce power and not its taxing authority, Judge Sutton said, adding that Congress' taxing power cannot sustain the constitutionality of the mandate.
Also, that Congress placed responsibility for enforcing the penalty with the Internal Revenue Service does not make the minimum-coverage provision a tax because the IRS also enforces other regulatory penalties, Judge Sutton said. Additionally, the PPACA does not treat the mandate like a tax because it prohibits the IRS from using its most salient enforcement tools in collecting the penalty, he added.
Congress could have raised taxes on everyone in an amount equivalent to the current penalty, then offered credits to those with minimum essential insurance or imposed a lower tax rate on people with health insurance than those without, but Congress did not do these things, Judge Sutton said.
U.S. Judge James L. Graham of the Southern District of Ohio sitting by designation, concurred with the court's opinion on the taxing power of the government but wrote separately, saying he disagreed with the commerce clause analysis.
"Here, Congress's exercise of power intrudes on both the States and the people. It brings an end to state experimentation and overrides the expressed legislative will of several states that have guaranteed to their citizens the freedom to choose not to purchase health insurance," Judge Graham said.
[Editor's Note: Full coverage will be in the July 7 issue of Mealey's Managed Care Liability Report. In the meantime, the order is available at Mealey's Online Research Service or by calling the Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844. Document #31-110706-019Z. For all of your legal news needs, please visit Mealey's Legal News and Litigation Reports.]
Download the document now:
Lexis.com - Document #31-110706-019Z
Mealeysonline.com - Document #31-110706-019Z
For more information, email editor Cheryl Keely at cheryl.keely@lexisnexis.com.
Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey's Publications.
Non-subscribers may search for Mealey's Publications stories and documents at Mealey's Online Research Service or visit Mealey's.com.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site
LexisNexis® Legal News Podcast - Health Care Reform Takes a Hit - Court Rules Individual Mandate Violates Commerce Clause
A Pennsylvania federal judge finds the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution, Goudy-Bachman v. United States HHS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102897 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011), and, a California federal judge certifies a wage-and-hour class suing a refinery. Hear these and other stories from LexisNexis® Mealey'sTM Publications. Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. For the latest litigation news headlines, visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys or www.lexisnexis.com/community.
Lexis.com subscribers may also access the earlier decision of the court, and also the original complaint and initial motion to dismiss, in which the plaintiffs were found to have standing to challenge the PPACA in Goudy-Bachman v. United States HHS, 764 F. Supp. 2d 684 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.
Friday, 15 November 2013
LexisNexis® Legal News Podcast - Victory For Health Care Reform Is Appealed by Jerry Falwell's Liberty University To Supreme Court
Liberty University petitions the Supreme Court over dismissal of a health care reform case, and defendants in a Propofol infection case in Nevada are ordered to pay $162.5 million in punitive damages. Hear these and other stories from LexisNexis® Mealey's Publications. Copyright © 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. For the latest litigation news headlines, visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys or www.lexisnexis.com/communities.
A Christian school on Oct. 10 filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a divided lower court decision that held that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Liberty University, et al. v. Timothy Geithner, et al., W.D. Va.).
On Nov. 30, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2010), dismissed a challenge to the PPACA brought by Liberty University Inc., Martha A. Neal, Michele G. Wadell, Dr. David Stein, Pausanias Alexander, Mary T. Bendorf, Joanne V. Merrill, Kathy Byron and Jeff Helgeson against U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, finding that Congress acted within its constitutionally delegated powers under the commerce clause when it passed the employer and individual mandates contained in the PPACA.
In a divided opinion, Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18618 (4th Cir. Va. Sept. 8, 2011), the majority of a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 8 held that the AIA strips the court of jurisdiction to hear Liberty University's challenge to the PPACA and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The dissenting judge said he would affirm the lower court's decision that Congress acted within its powers in passing the challenged provisions of the act.
McGuireWoods on the Supreme Court's Federal Health Care Reform Law Decision
By Stephanie A. Kennan, Brian Looser, Vincent A. Dongarra and R. Brent Rawlings
Intro:
On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], ruling on the constitutional challenges to the federal health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (the ACA). The Court upheld the controversial "individual mandate" as constitutional under Congress's tax power and permitted the ACA's Medicaid expansion to continue, but only on a voluntary basis by the states.
The Anti-Injunction Act Does Not Bar a Decision
Question before the Court: Does the Supreme Court have the authority to consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate given the penalties for non-compliance do not take effect and would not have been paid until 2015? The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) provides that the taxpayer must pay the tax before being able to challenge it. So is the penalty a tax?
Decision: The Court held that the AIA did not bar a decision because-for purposes of the AIA only-the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance under the individual mandate is not a tax. Chief Justice Roberts, writing the only portion of the opinion in which all the justices joined, disagreed stating that the AIA and ACA "are creatures of Congress's own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence of Congress's intent is the statutory text." Opinion of Roberts, C.J. at 13. In other words, when analyzing the individual mandate under the rules of the congressionally-created AIA, it is more important that Congress referred to it as a "penalty" instead of a "tax," even though it effectively functions as a tax.
Policy Perspective of Decision: The Court's ruling on this question does not cause a change in policy or implementation.
The Individual Mandate is Constitutional as a Tax
Question before the Court: Can the federal government require Americans to obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014 or pay a penalty? The Court reviewed Congress's power to institute the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Clause.
Decision: The Court upheld the individual mandate, not under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, but as a valid exercise of Congress's enumerated power to collect taxes under the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The Court held that the individual mandate could not be sustained as a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause because a necessary precursor of that authority is some existing activity that affects interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that the individual mandate does not regulate an existing activity; rather, it compels individuals to become involved in an activity and that "[C]onstruing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority." Opinion of Roberts, C.J. at 13.
The Court also dismissed arguments that the individual mandate could be sustained as a valid exercise of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Court reasoned that, while the individual mandate may be "necessary" to the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions, it is not "proper" because the necessity is based upon the guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions themselves.
Click here to read more of McGuireWoods on the Supreme Court's Federal Health Care Reform Law Decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)