Insurance Law Commons^™

Insuring Contraceptive Equity, Jennifer Hickey

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

The United States is in the midst of a family planning crisis. Approximately half of all pregnancies nationwide are unintended. In recognition of the social importance of family planning, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a “contraceptive mandate” that requires insurers to cover contraception at no cost. Yet, a decade after its enactment, the ACA’s promise of universal contraceptive access for insured women remains unfulfilled, with as many as one-third of U.S. women unable to access their preferred contraceptive without cost.

While much attention has been focused on religious exemptions granted to employers, the primary barrier to no-cost contraception is …

Bad Company? The Rise (Again) Of Association Health Plans, Brendan Williams

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This article first examines the rule adopted by the DOL and the criticism it has drawn. It then assesses the state of the small-group insurance market for small businesses, and the flawed approach that the ACA took to assisting them. Finally it takes a look at the uncertain future for small businesses and health insurance, and it suggests new approaches

Humanizing Work Requirements For Safety Net Programs, Mary Leto Pareja

Pace Law Review

This Article explores the political and policy appeal of work requirements for public benefit programs and concludes that inclusion of such requirements can be a reasonable design choice, but not in their current form. This Article’s proposals attempt to humanize these highly controversial work requirements while acknowledging the equity concerns they are designed to address. Drawing on expansive definitions of “work” found in guidance published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (“CMS”) and in various state waiver applications, this Article proposes that work requirements be approved for Medicaid (as well as other benefit programs) only if they encompass various …

The Practice And Tax Consequences Of Nonqualified Deferred Compensation, David I. Walker

Washington and Lee Law Review

Although nonqualified deferred compensation plans lack explicit tax preferences afforded to qualified plans, it is well understood that nonqualified deferred compensation results in a joint tax advantage when employers earn a higher after-tax return on deferred sums than employees could achieve on their own. But the joint tax advantage depends critically on how plans are operated; chiefly how plan sponsors use or invest deferred compensation dollars. This is the first Article to systematically investigate nonqualified deferred compensation practices. It shows that joint tax minimization historically has taken a backseat to accounting priorities and participant diversification concerns. In recent years, the …

The Duality Of Provider And Payer In The Current Healthcare Landscape And Related Antitrust Implications, Julia Kapchinskiy

San Diego Law Review

Health care landscape has changed with the introduction of the ACA and will keep changing due to the proposed repeal. The only constant is the desire of health plans and providers to maximize profits and minimize costs, which is attainable through consolidation. This Comment advocates a revision of the existing antitrust guidelines that would (1) recognize unique nature of health care market, (2) be independent from the current or proposed legislation to the maximum possible extent, and (3) reflect the insurer-provider duality, which heavily influences the quality and accessibility of the healthcare for the consumer.

Dinner For Two: Employer Mandate, Meet Erisa; How Dave & Buster’S Response To The Affordable Care Act’S Employer Mandate May Open The Door For Employees To Seek Erisa Relief, Kendall Victoria Dacey

Pepperdine Law Review

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law in late March, 2010, Dave & Buster’s (D&B) had a choice: it could either comply and offer its full-time employees the minimum health insurance coverage required by the new “employer mandate” or it could ignore the new requirements and incur a penalty. Dissatisfied with either option, D&B made the drastic decision to circumvent the ACA entirely, and reduced its full-time staff below the ACA’s employee threshold so as to avoid triggering any penalty or having to pay increased health care costs. However, by dodging the employer mandate, D&B may have come in …

Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) explaining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision (sometimes referred to as the individual mandate), he reasoned that the mandate—or, more precisely, the enforcement provision that accompanied the mandate (the Shared Responsibility Payment or SRP)—could be understood as a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance. According to this view, the enactment of the mandate and its accompanying enforcement provisions fell within Congress’s virtually unlimited power to “lay and collect taxes.” This tax-based interpretation …

Employer-Based Health Care Insurance: Not So Exceptional After All, David Orentlicher

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Building A Better Laboratory: The Federal Role In Promoting Health System Experimentation, Kristin Madison

Pepperdine Law Review

While expanding federal involvement in the health care system, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) preserves states' roles as policy laboratories and private providers' roles as health care delivery laboratories. State-based and provider-based laboratories suffer from many shortcomings, however, as mechanisms to develop, evaluate, and facilitate diffusion of reforms within the health system. This Article argues that the federal government can take steps to address these shortcomings. It first briefly reviews ACA provisions that promote policy and delivery experimentation. It then suggests that by tying funding to policy outcomes, making use of regulatory variation and regulatory menus, and …