Analysis: Supreme Court health reform arguments
Last week the Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the challenge by 26 states and several private plaintiffs to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the ACA's minimum coverage requirement was authorized neither by Congress's Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, nor by its power to levy taxes. The state plaintiffs also argued that they were being unconstitutionally coerced to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Read posts by several noted legal experts including Mary Ann Chirba, Timothy Jost, Renee Landers, Wendy Mariner, Alice Noble, Marc Rodwin, Sara Rosenbaum, and William Sage.
- Governors Push to Expand Role of PAs, Telemedicine
- 3 More Pioneer ACOs Say They Will Quit
- Ebola in the U.S.: Reason to Fear, to Hope, to Prepare
- Why Open Payments Irks Physicians
- Top Provider Billing Mistakes Are Changing
- Overcoming a Payer Mix 'Nightmare'
- Employee Engagement: Make It Meaningful
- These Algorithms Reduce Readmissions
- Payer Calls for More Primary Care Docs, Team Care
- Difficult Patients: It's Not Them, It's You, Doctor