Law Commons^™

Adding Principle To Pragmatism: The Transformative Potential Of "Medicare-For-All" In Post-Pandemic Health Reform, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

“Medicare-for-All” should be more than a badge of political identity or opposition. This Article examines the concept’s potential to catalyze policy innovation in the U.S. health care system. After suggesting that the half century of existing Medicare has been as much “Gilded Age” as “Golden Age,” the Article arrays the operational possibilities for a Medicare-for-All initiative. It revisits America’s recent history of pragmatic rather than principled health policy, and identifies professional and political barriers to more sweeping reform. It focuses on four aspects of health policy that have become apparent: simultaneous inefficiency and injustice in medical care, neglect of the …

Have The Aca’S Exchanges Succeeded? It’S Complicated, Nicole Huberfeld, David Jones, Sarah Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

The fight over health insurance exchanges epitomizes the rapid evolution of health reform politics in the decade since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA's drafters did not expect the exchanges to be contentious; they would expand private insurance coverage to low- and middle-income individuals who were increasingly unable to obtain employer-sponsored health insurance. Yet, exchanges became one of the primary fronts in the war over Obamacare. Have the exchanges been successful? The answer is not straightforward and requires a historical perspective through a federalism lens. What the ACA has accomplished has depended largely on whether states were …

Is Medicare For All The Answer? Assessing The Health Reform Gestalt As The Aca Turns 10, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

As presidential candidates debate health reform, the expression “Medicare for All” (“M4A”) is on repeat, yet few appear to understand precisely what Medicare is or what M4A would mean. Even more striking is that Americans are vigorously debating health reform when the ACA – President Obama’s signature legislation and a health reform effort on a scale not seen in decades – turns 10 on March 23.

The ACA pioneered universal coverage, but it also ratcheted up health care complexity by building new scaffolding around an old foundation. This fragmented landscape has been exacerbated by a crazy quilt of implementation crafted …

Rural Health, Universality, And Legislative Targeting, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Health disparities are persistent and worsening for rural communities, which have smaller patient populations with higher rates of uninsurance and greater incidence of the diseases and deaths of despair. Hospital closures and provider shortages are more common than in urban areas, also contributing to worsening population health and crises in maternal and infant health. This paper posits that these disparities are tied to the unique rural features of space and population. Efforts to address persistent problems in health care through universal legislation, such as the ACA, have given rural communities important tools to address some long-standing health problems by improving …

What Is Federalism In Health Care For?, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Affordable Care Act offers a window on modern American federalism—and modern American nationalism—in action. The ACA’s federalism is defined not by separation between state and federal, but rather by a national structure that invites state-led implementation. As it turns out, that structure was only a starting point for a remarkably dynamic and adaptive implementation process that has generated new state-federal arrangements. States move back and forth between different structural models vis-à-vis the federal government; internal state politics produce different state choices; states copy, compete, and cooperate with each other; and negotiation with federal counterparts is a near-constant. These characteristics …

The New Health Care Federalism On The Ground, Nicole Huberfeld, Abbe Gluck

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, part of a symposium investigating methods of empirically evaluating health policy, focuses on American health care federalism, the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health care policy and regulation. We describe the results of a five year study of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) from 2012-2017. Our study focused on two key pillars of the ACA, which happen to be its most state-centered — expansion of Medicaid and the implementation of health insurance exchanges — and sheds light on federalism in the modern era of nationally-enacted health …

The New Health Care Federalism On The Ground, Nicole Huberfeld, Abbe Gluck

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, part of a symposium investigating methods of empirically evaluating health policy, focuses on American health care federalism, the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health care policy and regulation. We describe the results of a five year study of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) from 2012-2017. Our study focused on two key pillars of the ACA, which happen to be its most state-centered — expansion of Medicaid and the implementation of health insurance exchanges — and sheds light on federalism in the modern era of nationally-enacted health …

Fracking Health Care: How To Safely De-Medicalize America And Recover Trapped Value For Its People, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

The wealth trapped within American health care is simultaneously a tragedy and a miracle. It is a tragedy because stagnating wages, widening disparities in income, ballooning deficits, and stunted investments in education and social services make such medical profligacy shameful. It is a miracle because it still exists, whereas other U.S. economic resources of similar magnitude have already been dissipated by global market forces without addressing any of the aforementioned failings – indeed, sometimes having contributed to them. It therefore can be released and used.

It is time to “frack the health care system” and innovate the de-medicalization of America. …

The Picture Begins To Assert Itself: Rules Of Construction For Essential Health Benefits In Health Insurance Plans Subject To The Affordable Care Act, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

As the ACA shifts the function of health insurance from voluntary contract to a means of financing health care, it poses some challenges to traditional doctrines for interpreting health plan provisions. This article explores whether and how the doctrine of reasonable expectations and rules of statutory interpretation might apply to Essential Health Benefits coverage. A functional approach linking the two into a doctrine of reasonable statutory expectations could move us toward developing more consistent rules of interpretation within a more realistic conception of contemporary health insurance.

An Empirical Perspective On Medicaid As Social Insurance, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

This paper is a contribution to the symposium entitled Scalpel to Gavel: Exploring the Modern State of Health Law. This essay quantifies and explores the central role Medicaid now plays in our health insurance system. For its first forty-nine years, Medicaid covered less than half of the nation’s poor. Today, one in five Americans have Medicaid coverage during the course of a year, and that number soon will increase to one in four given the insurance expansions enacted through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Medicaid now effectively functions as social insurance for many of its enrollees. In this …

The Universality Of Medicaid At Fifty, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, written for the Yale Law School symposium on The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at 50, explores how the law of Medicaid after the ACA creates a meaningful principle of universalism by shifting from fragmentation and exclusivity to universality and inclusivity. The universality principle provides a new trajectory for all of American health care, one that is not based on individual qualities that are unrelated to medical care but rather grounded in non-judgmental principles of unification and equalization (if not outright solidarity). This essay examines the ACA's legislative reformation, which led to universality, and its quantifiable effects. The …

Allocating Responsibility For Health Care Decisions Under The United States Affordable Care Act, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

This article summarizes the major elements of the ACA's insurance reforms and how they affect responsibility for making decisions about the health care that people receive. A key example of the difficulty of allocating decision making responsibility is the effort to define a minimum benefit package for insurance plans, called essential health benefits. While the ACA should achieve its goal of near-universal access to care, it leaves in place a multiplicity of processes and decision-makers for determining individual treatment. As a result, decisions about what care is provided are likely to remain, much as they are today, divided among government …

Health Insurance Is Dead; Long Live Health Insurance, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

Today, health insurance is no longer simply a class of insurance that covers risks to health, and it has not been so for many years. Health insurance has become a unique form of insurance — a mechanism to pay for healthcare that uses risk spreading as one of several pricing methods. The Affordable Care Act builds on this important payment function to create a complex social insurance system to finance healthcare for (almost) everyone. This article examines how the ACA draws on various conceptions of insurance to produce a quasi-social insurance system. This system poses new challenges to laws governing …

Enough About The Constitution: How States Can Regulate Health Insurance Under The Aca, Brendan S. Maher, Radha A. Pathak

Faculty Scholarship

Last term, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a landmark decision. It is a forceful reminder that America’s oldest question — how power should be shared between federal and state sovereigns — retains powerful political salience. Critics have reflexively attacked the decision as an assault on states’ rights, while supporters have celebrated the result. Regrettably, insufficient attention has been paid to how, in actuality, health care regulatory authority has been and will be divided between federal and state governments. In this Article, we fill that gap. To do so, we apply “federalism-in-fact,” …

Constitutional Uncertainty And The Design Of Social Insurance: Reflections On The Obamacare Case, Michael J. Graetz, Jerry L. Mashaw

Faculty Scholarship

In 2010, Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA), a complex statute of more than nine hundred pages that fulfilled his goal of extending health-insurance coverage to virtually all Americans – an objective that previous U.S. presidents had sought and failed to achieve for a century. This legislation was hotly contested in the Congress, passing with the support of very few Republicans in the Senate and none in the House.

To broaden access to health insurance, the ACA relies primarily on two devices: (1) an expansion to Medicaid – a joint federal-state health-insurance program for …

Where There Is A Right, There Must Be A Remedy (Even In Medicaid), Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The anticipated growth of Medicaid under the ACA will likely aggravate an ongoing dispute surrounding private enforcement of the Medicaid Act. The Medicaid Act does not provide a private right of action except when a person who is eligible for Medicaid is denied entry into the program. Nevertheless, historically, both Medicaid providers and beneficiaries have been able to protect their rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to seek redress against states in federal court for violations of statutory or constitutional rights, or through the Supremacy Clause, which prevents states from enacting laws that violate superseding federal laws. …

Reframing Federalism — The Affordable Care Act (And Broccoli) In The Supreme Court, Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, Leonard H. Glantz

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the insurance-coverage requirement, allows historic reforms in the health care system to move forward. Because the justices were split four to four on whether the ACA was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts was able to write the lead opinion that commanded five votes for whatever outcome he determined was constitutional. The chief justice's leadership in upholding almost all of the ACA was unanticipated, as was much of his legal reasoning. It was widely assumed that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the Court would …

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism on this point is surprising, however, given that judges today frequently choose indirect methods for protecting substantive constitutional values, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another …

Obamacare's (3) Day(S) In Court, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

Before the oral arguments in late March, the vast majority of legal scholars felt confident that the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold the individual mandate against the constitutional challenge that twenty-six states have levied against it. Since the oral argument, that confidence has been severely shaken. This article asks why legal scholars were so confident before the argument and what has made us so concerned since the argument. The article posits that certain fundamental characteristics of health insurance - particularly its unusual role in steering healthcare consumption decisions, which distinguishes health insurance from standard kinds of indemnity …

Bad News For John Marshall, Gary S. Lawson, David Kopel

Faculty Scholarship

In "Bad News for Professor Koppelman: The Incidental Unconstitutionality of the Individual Mandate," we demonstrated that the individual mandate’s forced participation in commercial transactions cannot be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause as the Clause was interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Professor Andrew Koppelman’s response, "Bad News for Everybody," wrongly conflates that argument with a wide range of interpretative and substantive positions that are not logically entailed by taking seriously the requirement that laws enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause must be incidental to an enumerated power. His response is thus largely unresponsive to our actual arguments.

Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

The lawsuits challenging Obamacare's individual mandate have exposed a rift in federalism theory. On one side of the divide is a view that the national government ought to intervene - and ought to be constitutionally permitted to intervene - whenever the states are "separately incompetent" to regulate. This is the view that Robert Cooter and Neil Siegel recently theorized as "collective action federalism." On the other side of the divide is a view that federalism exists for reasons other than efficiency of regulation and particularly that the Founders created the federal structure for the protection of individual liberty. According to …

The Ppaca In Wonderland, Gary S. Lawson, David Kopel

Faculty Scholarship

The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some portions …

What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Not since George H.W. Bush banned it from the menu of Air Force One did broccoli receive as much attention as during the legal and political debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). Opponents of the ACA have forcefully and repeatedly argued that if Congress has the power to require Americans to purchase health insurance as a means of reducing health care costs, then it likewise has the power to require Americans to eat broccoli. Broccoli is mentioned twelve times across the four Supreme Court opinions issued in the ACA decision – that's eleven more appearances than …