Law Commons^™

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 …

The Affordable Care Act And Health Promotion: The Role Of Insurance In Defining Responsibility For Health Risks And Costs, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines whether insurance is an appropriate mechanism for improving individual health or reducing the cost of health care for payers. The Affordable Care Act contains implicit standards for allocating responsibility for health, especially in provisions encouraging health promotion and wellness programs. A summary of the accumulating evidence of the effects of such programs suggests that wellness programs have been somewhat more effective in making people feel better than in reducing costs. Health promotion should be encouraged, because health is valuable for its own sake. Insurance is not well suited to improve health or manage behavioral risks to health; …

Physicians And Safe Harbor Legal Immunity, Thaddeus Pope

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Sandra Johnson has identified what she calls physician’s “bad law” claims. In some circumstances, physicians perceive that there is significant legal risk in doing what they think is clinically appropriate. In response, physicians sometimes take a medically inappropriate course of action, because it appears safer. For example, physicians might feel intimidated by aggressively enforced drug control laws. In response, they may under-treat patients’ pain to avoid perceived (and real) threats of investigation, discipline, or criminal prosecution. In short, well-meaning laws sometimes have the unintended side-effect of incentivizing physicians to do “bad” things.

Johnson identifies three responses to physicians’ “bad …

Patient Racial Preferences And The Medical Culture Of Accommodation, Kimani Paul-Emile

Faculty Scholarship

One of medicine’s open secrets is that patients routinely refuse or demand medical treatment based on the assigned physician’s racial identity, and hospitals typically yield to patients’ racial preferences. This widely practiced, if rarely acknowledged, phenomenon — about which there is new empirical evidence — poses a fundamental dilemma for law, medicine, and ethics. It also raises difficult questions about how we should think about race, health, and individual autonomy in this context. Informed consent rules and common law battery dictate that a competent patient has an almost-unqualified right to refuse medical care, including treatment provided by an unwanted physician. …

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 …

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 …