Health Law and Policy Commons^™

Fracking As A Federalism Case Study, Amanda Leiter

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Conflict Of Visions In Nfib V. Sebelius, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

In 2010, few anticipated the fate of healthcare reform would rest with the Supreme Court. Yet National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [hereinafter NFIB] emerged as a watershed case that could remake the constitutional landscape. NFIB presented a conflict between two constitutional visions of federal power and the role of the courts in policing such limits--an unconstrained vision, under which limits on federal power are enforced primarily through the political process, and a constrained vision, under which constitutional limits on federal power are enforced by the courts. The contrasting views of the constitutionality of the individual mandate and …

Crafting A Narrative For The Red State Option, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This Article examines the current state of play following the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB v. Sebelius to allow states the option of expanding their Medicaid programs in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Holding that mandatory expansion was unconstitutionally coercive, the Court created the Red State Option. Despite the enormously generous federal financial support for Medicaid expansion, close to half of the states have declined. At the same time, at least eight Republican-led states have crossed Tea Party lines to accept federal funding for expansion. Drawing lessons from these states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, and …

Dynamic Expansion, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly one in four Americans will have medical care and costs covered by the Medicaid program when it has been expanded pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA). National media outlets have been reporting that only about half of the states are participating in the Medicaid expansion; if the reports were true, millions of Americans would be left without insurance coverage, and many of the nation’s medically fragile citizens would not have access to consistent healthcare. Contrary to these reports, most states will participate in the Medicaid expansion in the near future. This claim is not …

Not The Power To Destroy: An Effects Theory Of The Tax Power, Robert D. Cooter, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s “new federalism” decisions impose modest limits on the regulatory authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. According to those decisions, the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to use penalties to regulate interstate commerce, but not to regulate noncommercial conduct. What prevents Congress from penalizing non-commercial conduct by calling a penalty a tax and invoking the Taxing Clause? The only obstacle is the distinction between a penalty and a tax for purposes of Article I, Section 8. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB), the Court considered whether the minimum coverage provision in the Patient Protection and …

Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal Irs Rule To Expand Tax Credits Under The Ppaca, Jonathan H. Adler, Michael F. Cannon

Faculty Publications

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans on state-run insurance exchanges. Contrary to expectations, many states are refusing or otherwise failing to create such exchanges. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule purports to extend these tax credits and subsidies to the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges created in states without exchanges of their own. This rule lacks statutory authority. The text, structure, and history of the Act show that tax credits and subsidies are not available in federally run exchanges. The IRS rule is …

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,” …

The Patient Process And Affordable Care Act Of 2010: Implementation Challenges In The Context Of Federalism, Robert F. Rich, Eric Cheung, Robert Lurvey

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Plunging Into Endless Difficulties: Medicaid And Coercion In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Nicole Huberfeld, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, Kevin Outterson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Until the 2011 Term, no Supreme Court decision since the New Deal had struck down an act of Congress as exceeding the federal spending power. The question of unconstitutionally coercive conditions was also novel. Indeed, no federal court had ever found any legislation to be an unconstitutionally coercive exercise of the spending power until the Court decided National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) on June 28, 2012. This Article proceeds as follows: Part I discusses the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion in the context of the history and purpose of the Medicaid Act, paying particular attention to facts …

Where There Is A Right, There Must Be A Remedy (Even In Medicaid), Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article will explore the power struggle that Medicaid invites and its potential elevation due to the pressures that will follow the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) expansion. Part I of this Article will describe the three phases of private enforcement litigation and how they have affected Medicaid reimbursement rates. This Part also will highlight the deceptive stability that has taken root in the lower federal courts by describing the recent state attempts to end private enforcement actions. The first Part will conclude by briefly considering the nature of the federalism arguments that states are making. Part II …

A Response To Beyond Separation: Professor Copeland’S Ambitious Proposal For “Integrative” Federalism, Elizabeth Weeks

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Where There Is A Right, There Must Be A Remedy (Even In Medicaid), Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The anticipated growth of Medicaid under the ACA will likely aggravate an ongoing dispute surrounding private enforcement of the Medicaid Act. The Medicaid Act does not provide a private right of action except when a person who is eligible for Medicaid is denied entry into the program. Nevertheless, historically, both Medicaid providers and beneficiaries have been able to protect their rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to seek redress against states in federal court for violations of statutory or constitutional rights, or through the Supremacy Clause, which prevents states from enacting laws that violate superseding federal laws. …

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 …

Post-Reform Medicaid Before The Court: Discordant Advocacy Reflects Conflicting Attitudes, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court will decide two major Medicaid cases this term that raise major questions about the program and the tensions it creates between the federal government and the states. The Court heard oral arguments on October 3d in Douglas v. Independent Living Center, a dispute between California and its Medicaid providers regarding reimbursement cuts due to California’s budget crisis. The Medicaid providers argue that these proposed cuts are so extreme as to violate federal law and thus the Supremacy Clause. Their contention hinges on the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, which commands states to pay healthcare providers …

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 Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Challenges To The Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Health Care Cases And The New Meaning Of Commandeering, Bradley W. Joondeph

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Health Care Cases to sustain the central provisions of the Affordable Care Act (or ACA) was hugely important in several ways. Most commentators have focused on the Court’s upholding of the ACA’s minimum coverage provision. But the Court’s Medicaid holding—that the ACA coerced (and thus commandeered) the states by making their preexisting Medicaid funds contingent on the states’ expanding their programs—may actually be more significant as a matter of constitutional law.

The basic thesis of this article is that, in finding the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provisions coercive, the Court has re-conceptualized what constitutes a …

Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article argues that most commentators have exaggerated all three of the relevant issues with Obamacare: its efficiency gains, its liberty costs, and its departure from the status quo ante's federalist balance. The collective action problem with state insurance regulation is not as bad as scholars of collective action federalism have argued; the liberty implications of the individual mandate are not as extreme as scholars of libertarian federalism have argued; and the shift from state to national power is not as significant as the litigants and courts have argued. Although I do not make the strong claim that Obamacare reaches …

What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Not since George H.W. Bush banned it from the menu of Air Force One did broccoli receive as much attention as during the legal and political debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). Opponents of the ACA have forcefully and repeatedly argued that if Congress has the power to require Americans to purchase health insurance as a means of reducing health care costs, then it likewise has the power to require Americans to eat broccoli. Broccoli is mentioned twelve times across the four Supreme Court opinions issued in the ACA decision – that's eleven more appearances than …

The Liberty Of Free Riders: The Minimum Coverage Provision, Mill’S 'Harm Principle,' And American Social Morality, Jedediah S. Britton-Purdy, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, we show that cost-shifting and adverse selection problems link the federalism dimension of the debate over the Affordable Care Act to the doctrinally separate and suppressed individual rights dimension. As the scope of these free-rider problems justifies federal power to require individuals to obtain health insurance coverage, so the very existence of the free-rider problems illuminates the difficulty of arguing directly — as opposed to indirectly through the Commerce Clause — that the minimum coverage provision infringes individual liberty. The interdependence between some people’s decisions to forgo insurance and the well-being of other people means that refusing …

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation presents a standing paradox. In the current posture, it appears that states lack standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of individuals, while individuals possess standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of states. This Article contends that there is no principled reason for this asymmetry and argues that standing doctrine should apply as liberally to states as individuals, assuming states allege the constitutional minimum requirements for standing and especially where the legal challenge turns on allocation of power between the federal government and states. The Article proceeds by …

The Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Resistance To Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This paper provides an update and reanalysis of my previously published article, Rhetorical Federalism: The Value of State-Based Dissent to Federal Health Reform, 93 Hofstra Law Review 111 (2010). In Rhetorical Federalism, I made an affirmative case for the widespread trend of state resistance to the then-recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). Before and immediately after ACA’s enactment, a significant number of states engaged in various forms of objection to the new federal Act, including but not limited to lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate. My article focused on five targets of …

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 …

Federalizing Medicaid, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article is one of only a small number of proposals over the past forty-six years for federalizing Medicaid. None of these proposals has grappled directly with the reasons that Medicaid does not satisfy federalism goals, and thus a key reason for modernizing Medicaid’s structure has been ignored. Despite being an area of “traditional state concern,” healthcare should no longer be left to the economic and political whims of the states, as Medicaid is not an effective Brandeisian “laboratory of the states.” Admittedly, some would oppose centralization on the ideological grounds that more federal government power is bad, and more …

Federalizing Medicaid, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Medicaid fosters constant tension between the federal government and the states, and that friction has been exacerbated by its expansion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). Medicaid was an under-theorized and underfunded continuation of existing programs that retained two key aspects of welfare medicine as it developed: bias toward limiting government assistance to the “deserving poor,” and delivery of care through the states that resulted in a strong sense of states’ rights. These ideas regarding the deserving poor and federalism have remained constants in the program over the last forty-six years, but PPACA changes one …

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.

Cooperation, Commandeering, Or Crowding Out?: Federal Intervention And State Choices In Health Care Policy, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

This Article's analysis proceeds in three parts. Part II of this article outlines the policy considerations in determining the proper federal and state balance in health care policy. There are strong arguments for state primacy in health care policy, but also substantial justifications for federal intervention. Part III discusses the concept of "cooperative federalism," under which the federal government encourages state governments to implement policies in accord with federal priorities, and identifies constitutional limitations on the federal government's ability to direct or even influence state policy choices. Even if the constitutional challenges to the individual mandate fails, federalism-based challenges to …

Cooperation, Commandeering, Or Crowding Out? : Federal Intervention And State Choices In Health Care Policy, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) substantially alters the respective roles of the federal and state governments in health care policy. Beyond the individual mandate, the ACA presents many questions of federalism, both constitutional and policy-related. This paper, prepared for a symposium sponsored by the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, addresses some of these federalism issues. After outlining some of the policy considerations for determining the proper federal and state balance in health care policy, it identifies constitutional limitations on the federal government’s ability to direct or even influence state policy choices, before discussing how federal …

Rhetorical Federalism: The Value Of State-Based Dissent To Federal Health Reform, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This Article makes the affirmative case for the widespread trend of state resistance to the recently enacted, comprehensive federal health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or ACA. A significant number of states have engaged in various forms of objection to the new federal laws, including filing lawsuits against the federal government, enacting laws providing that ACA will not apply to residents of the state, and refusing to cooperate with implementing the new laws. This Article identifies reasons why those actions should not be disregarded simply as Tea Party antics or election-year gamesmanship but instead …