Law Commons^™

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,” …

Let Fifty Flowers Bloom: Health Care Federalism After National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Ann Marie Marciarille

Faculty Works

Conventional wisdom is that the American public does not want to think too long or too hard about Medicaid. Medicaid’s reputation has long been big, complicated, and widely misunderstood. The 2012 presidential election campaign has been much about Medicaid, but Medicaid is a subject we love to talk around. Yet, our next president will be compelled to think and speak explicitly and fluently about Medicaid because Medicaid is the budget-buster of government funded health insurance. Its budget busting propensities are most pronounced at the intersection of Medicaid and the government-funded health insurance program we do love to discuss: Medicare.

This …

Health Insurance And Federalism-In-Fact, Radha A. Pathak, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

The constitutional legitimacy of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) received substantial attention. Less examined has been the legislation’s sub-constitutional effect on the regulatory power that states can and might exercise. Regarding a state's ability to promulgate "sickness rules," (those legal rules pertaining to the conditions or treatment an insurance policy covers) and "non-sickness" rules (those legal rules pertaining to insurance other than sickness rules), we scrutinize the ACA itself and contrast it with the other most significant statute governing private health insurance, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The authors would like to thank …

The Benefits Of Opt-In Federalism, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) is a controversial and historic statute that mandates people make insurance bargains. Unacknowledged is an innovative mechanism ACA uses to select the law that governs those bargains: opt-in federalism.

Opt-in federalism – in which individuals choose between federal and state rules – is a promising theoretical means to make and choose law. This Article explains why, and concludes that the appeal of opt-in federalism is independent of ACA. Whatever the statute’s constitutional fate, future policymakers should consider opt-in federalist approaches to answer fundamental but exceedingly difficult questions of health and retirement law.

Four Constitutional Limits That The Minimum Coverage Provision Respects, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Opponents of the minimum coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act charge that if Congress can require most people to obtain health insurance or pay a certain amount of money, then Congress can impose whatever mandates it wishes—or, at least, whatever purchase mandates it wishes. This Essay refutes that claim by identifying four limits on the Commerce Clause that the minimum coverage provision honors. Congress may not use its commerce power: (1) to regulate noneconomic subject matter; (2) to impose a regulation that violates constitutional rights, including the right to bodily integrity; (3) to regulate at all, including by imposing …

Federalization Snowballs: The Need For National Action In Medical Malpractice Reform, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

Because tort law generally and healthcare regulation specifically are traditional state functions and because medical, legal, and insurance practices are highly localized, legal scholars have long believed that medical malpractice falls within the states' exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty. Indeed, this view is so widely held that modern legal scholarship takes it for granted. Articles on general federalism issues use medical malpractice as an easy example of a policy in which federal intervention lacks functional justification, and articles that focus on federalization of other tort reforms use medical malpractice as an easy foil, pointing out that the uniformity interest that justifies …

A Single-License Approach To Regulating Insurance, Henry N. Butler, Larry E. Ribstein

Faculty Working Papers

State regulation of insurance companies has been criticized for many years because of the burden imposed on insurers by having to comply with the laws of many jurisdictions. These higher costs are passed on to consumers. The problems with the current regulatory structure are prompting calls for increased federal regulation of insurance. However, all proposals to federalize insurance regulation create opportunities for abuse at the hands of the federal government and fail to utilize the benefits of a federal system. This article shows how many of the problems of the current system can be addressed without resorting to a large …

Federalism And Antitrust Reform, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Currently the Antitrust Modernization Commission is considering numerous proposals for adjusting the relationship between federal antitrust authority and state regulation. This essay examines two areas that have produced a significant amount of state-federal conflict: state regulation of insurance and the state action immunity for general state regulation. It argues that no principle of efficiency, regulatory theory, or federalism justifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which creates an antitrust immunity for state regulation of insurance. What few benefits the Act confers could be fully realized by an appropriate interpretation of the state action doctrine. Second, the current formulation of the antitrust state action …