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.
- As Retail Clinics Surge, Quality Metrics MIA
- Providers' Push to Consolidate Roils Payers
- Former NQF Co-Chair Linked to Conflicts of Interest in Journal Probe
- RN Named Chief Patient Experience Officer
- No Employee Satisfaction, No Patient-Centered Culture
- Medicare Cost, Quality Data Tools Weak, Says GAO
- In PCMH, the 'P' is Not for 'Physician'
- How Simple Data Analytics is Driving Physician Incentives
- Population Health Pays Off for NY Collaborative
- AMA Pushes Lame Duck Congress for SGR Repeal