Law Commons^™

Do Damages Caps Reduce Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums?: A Systematic Review Of Estimates And The Methods Used To Produce Them, Kathryn Zeiler, Lorian E. Hardcastle

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite common claims made in policy debates, the theoretical connection between tort reform and medical malpractice insurance premiums is ambiguous. Simple models suggest reforms such as statutory damages caps reduce premiums. More elaborate models that account for changes in physician behavior suggest caps might increase or have no impact on premiums. A number of empirical studies have been conducted to estimate the impacts of caps on premiums, and several qualitative literature reviews have attempted to draw general conclusions from the literature. No review, however, has offered a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the full set of empirical studies. This chapter …

The Power To Block The Affordable Care Act: What Are The Limits?, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Though Supreme Court upheld most parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Congress’ goals in enacting it could still be frustrated by non-implementation. During his campaign for president, Governor Romney promised “to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states.” While such blanket waivers would likely violate the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, the ACA does permit other waivers. To be lawful, however, they must meet certain requirements designed to enhance access and lower cost. A president who opposes the ACA might be able to limit its implementation by refusing to issue premium subsidies in federally operated insurance exchanges, and this might …

The Nature Of Risk Preferences: Evidence From Insurance Choices, Levon Barseghyan, Francesca Molinari, Joshua C. Teitelbaum, Ted O'Donoghue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The authors use data on insurance deductible choices to estimate a structural model of risky choice that incorporates "standard" risk aversion (diminishing marginal utility for wealth) and probability distortions. They find that probability distortions--characterized by substantial overweighting of small probabilities and only mild insensitivity to probability changes--play an important role in explaining the aversion to risk manifested in deductible choices. This finding is robust to allowing for observed and unobserved heterogeneity in preferences. They demonstrate that neither Kőszegi-Rabin loss aversion alone nor Gul disappointment aversion alone can explain our estimated probability distortions, signifying a key role for probability weighting.

Justice Roberts’ America, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Less than a week after the Roberts Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, Jeffrey Toobin, writing in The New Yorker, compared the first part of Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion, in which he found that the Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to enact the "individual mandate" section of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires all individuals to buy health insurance, with an Ayn Rand screed, noting that the pivotal sections of the argument were long on libertarian rhetoric but short on citations of authority. Roberts held (although "held" might be …

An O’Neill Institute Briefing Paper: The Supreme Court’S Landmark Decision On The Affordable Care Act: Healthcare Reform’S Ultimate Fate Remains Uncertain, Emily W. Parento, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

The Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a landmark on the path toward ensuring universal access to health care in the United States. In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld the law in its entirety with the sole exception that Congress may not revoke existing state Medicaid funding to penalize states that decline to participate in the Medicaid expansion under the ACA. In this O’Neill Institute Briefing, we explain and analyze the Court’s decision, focusing on the individual purchase mandate and the Medicaid expansion, while …

Healthcare Reform Hangs In The Balance, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

In this timely new briefing, Professor Lawrence O. Gostin, University Professor and Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University writes:

Prior to Tuesday’s arguments, I believed that the Supreme Court would uphold the health insurance purchase mandate by a comfortable margin. But now I believe that health care reform hangs in the balance. Here are the key arguments on which the future of President Obama’s health care reform depends: a greater freedom, cost-shifting, the health care market, acts versus omissions, limiting principles, the population-base approach, and what is necessary and proper. If the Court strikes …

Why The Affordable Care Act's Individual Purchase Mandate Is Both Constitutional And Indispensable To The Public Welfare, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

Integral to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA’s) conceptual design is the individual purchase mandate, which requires most individuals to pay an annual tax penalty if they do not have health insurance by 2014. Despite the vociferous opposition, the mandate is the most “market-friendly” financing device because it relies on the private sector. Ironically, less market-oriented reforms such as a single-payer system clearly would have been constitutional.

It is common sense for everyone to purchase health insurance and thus gain security against the potentially catastrophic costs of treating a serious illness or injury. However, Congress’ method of ensuring that everyone has …

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Supreme Court And The Future Of Health Care Reform, Lawrence O. Gostin, Kelli K. Garcia

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Florida v. HHS, a lawsuit brought on behalf of 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Supreme Court will determine the future direction of health care reform in the United States. During the unprecedented 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, the Court will hear 4 issues: the individual purchase mandate, severability, the Medicaid expansion and the Anti-Injunction Act.

The states challenging the ACA maintain that the purchase mandate uniquely penalizes individuals for failing to purchase insurance. Uninsured individuals, however, rarely do nothing. Instead, they self-insure, rely on family, and cost-shift to …

Health Care And The Illegal Immigrant, Patrick J. Glen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The question of whether illegal immigrants should be entitled to some form of health coverage in the United States sits at the uneasy intersection of two contentious debates: health reform and immigration reform. Befitting this place, the rhetoric surrounding the issue has been exponentially heightened by the multiplying effects of combining two vitriolic debates. On one side, it is argued that the United States has a moral obligation to provide health care to all those within its borders needing such assistance. On the other, it is argued with equal force that those illegally present in this country should not be …