U.S. Supreme Court Hears Constitutionality Arguments of Healthcare Reform
From March 26-28, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The main issue under consideration by the court is whether the “individual mandate” section of the law, requiring all Americans to be insured by 2014, is constitutional. The court’s first determination on the law will fall under the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether the challenges to the individual mandate can even be challenged in court at this time. If found to be applicable, the Anti-Injunction Act could prevent the court from ruling on the issue until after taxpayers have actually incurred a financial penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate. If the court decides the case can proceed, it would then rule on whether the individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress’ legislative powers. Private and state plaintiffs have argued that Congress does not have the power to enact a law requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. If the court upholds the individual mandate, it is scheduled to take effect in 2014. However, if the court determines that this minimum coverage requirement is unconstitutional, the court will then determine the “severability” of the individual mandate and whether some, or all, of the comprehensive law must fail. Lastly, the court also heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the ACA’s expansion of the Medicaid program to cover all adults younger than 65 with household incomes below the poverty level. The court will release its decision on these issues this summer, prior to the November elections. The Academy will continue to closely monitor the proceedings and determine the influence of the decision on Academy members and their patients. For more information, questions, or comments, email legstate@entnet.org.
From March 26-28, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The main issue under consideration by the court is whether the “individual mandate” section of the law, requiring all Americans to be insured by 2014, is constitutional.
The court’s first determination on the law will fall under the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether the challenges to the individual mandate can even be challenged in court at this time. If found to be applicable, the Anti-Injunction Act could prevent the court from ruling on the issue until after taxpayers have actually incurred a financial penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate.
If the court decides the case can proceed, it would then rule on whether the individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress’ legislative powers. Private and state plaintiffs have argued that Congress does not have the power to enact a law requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. If the court upholds the individual mandate, it is scheduled to take effect in 2014. However, if the court determines that this minimum coverage requirement is unconstitutional, the court will then determine the “severability” of the individual mandate and whether some, or all, of the comprehensive law must fail.
Lastly, the court also heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the ACA’s expansion of the Medicaid program to cover all adults younger than 65 with household incomes below the poverty level.
The court will release its decision on these issues this summer, prior to the November elections. The Academy will continue to closely monitor the proceedings and determine the influence of the decision on Academy members and their patients. For more information, questions, or comments, email legstate@entnet.org.