Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Fate Of The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative In A Biden Administration, Seth Shepherd
The Fate Of The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative In A Biden Administration, Seth Shepherd
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
This article analyzes the Biden Administration’s healthcare priorities, contrasts them with those of the Trump Administration, discusses how Presidential administrations determine whether to continue policies, and examines the proper procedures for continuing previous administration policies. This article will then examine whether the Initiative will have a place in the Biden Administration’s healthcare policy. Part II considers Biden’s overall approach to healthcare. Part III discusses what the Trump Administration’s healthcare policy accomplished. Part IV dissects the Initiative and begins a discussion regarding its effectiveness. Part V explores an administration’s decision-making process regarding retention or rejection of a previous administration’s policies and …
Bad Company? The Rise (Again) Of Association Health Plans, Brendan Williams
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
Keeping The Healthcare Industry Accountable, Yoori Chung
Keeping The Healthcare Industry Accountable, Yoori Chung
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
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
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 …
King V. Burwell: What Does It Portend For Chevron’S Domain?, Leandra Lederman, Joseph C. Dugan
King V. Burwell: What Does It Portend For Chevron’S Domain?, Leandra Lederman, Joseph C. Dugan
Pepperdine Law Review
This short Essay considers what the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015), suggests about the future of Chevron deference. It first compares the Court’s approach in King with its approach in two other “extraordinary” nondeference cases, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Gonzales v. Oregon. It next situates King in a broader context of developments in the Court’s Chevron jurisprudence. The Essay concludes that, while King may simply be a sui generis case involving an important social program, it may also signal a fading appetite for deference among the Justices. - …
Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker
Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker
Pepperdine Law Review
In our contribution to this symposium on King v. Burwell, we explore two aspects of the Chief Justice’s opinion where it is hard to ignore the fingerprints of a tax lawyer. First, in the Chief’s approach to statutory interpretation one sees a tax lawyer as interpreter with an approach that tracks tax law’s substance-over-form doctrine. Second, as to King’s sweeping administrative law holding, the Chief crafts a new major questions doctrine that could significantly cut back on federal agency lawmaking authority. Yet he seems to develop this doctrine against the backdrop of tax exceptionalism, and thus this development may have …
The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson
The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Chevron is receding in tax, not because of any resurgence of tax exceptionalism but because it is receding everywhere. The case will continue to be cited by courts and masticated by commentators, but the unresolved – indeed worsening — conceptual, definitional, and practical incongruities of its doctrine rob it of operational force. King, which the Supreme Court conspicuously chose to resolve without “help” from Chevron, is another mile-marker on Chevron’s downward road. This article maps that road.
King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill
King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill
Pepperdine Law Review
In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court did not rely on Chevron to hold valid tax regulations allowing tax credits for taxpayers who enroll in an insurance plan through a federal rather than a state exchange. It instead concluded, relying in good measure on Brown and Williamson, that Congress had not delegated the question at issue to the IRS. It thus introduced a so-called Chevron Step 0. This essay reviews the Tax Court’s use of Chevron and Brown & Williamson to conclude that the Tax Court may well make use of King v. Burwell to review and reject tax regulations …
Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage
Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage
Pepperdine Law Review
As an introduction to the Symposium, this invited response essay reviews the pieces submitted for the Pepperdine Law Review symposium on the King v. Burwell case. The thrust of this essay’s response commentary is to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. Ultimately, this essay suggests that what may have motivated the Supreme Court to develop and apply its new “deep economic and political significance” test in this this case …
Building A Better Laboratory: The Federal Role In Promoting Health System Experimentation, Kristin Madison
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 …
The Likely Impact Of National Federation On Commerce Clause Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr., Grant S. Nelson
The Likely Impact Of National Federation On Commerce Clause Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr., Grant S. Nelson
Pepperdine Law Review
In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court exhaustively analyzed Congress’s constitutional power to enact the watershed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). The ACA imposes a “shared responsibility requirement,” popularly known as the “Individual Mandate” (IM), which forces Americans to buy medical insurance or pay a “penalty.” The ACA’s text and legislative history, as well as the public defenses of it by President Obama and his supporters, consistently described the IM as a valid exercise of Congress’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” This reliance on the Commerce …