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.
- CFO Exchange: Smartphones Poised to Disrupt Healthcare, Says Topol
- How Digital Strategy Shapes Patient Engagement at Boston Children's Hospital
- Half of All Primary Care, Internal Medicine Jobs Unfilled in 2013
- CNO on Hospital Redesign: 'You Can't Over-Communicate'
- Carondelet to Pay $35M to Settle Fraud Allegations
- Consumerism Drives Healthcare Branding, Rebranding Efforts
- Some Cancer Hospitals' Quality Data Will Soon Be Public
- PA Ranks See 'Phenomenal Growth,' Lack of Diversity
- 3 Traits Personality Assessments Can't Reveal
- CA Powers Up $80M HIE to 'Create Value in the Data'