Analysis: Supreme Court health reform arguments
Health Affairs, April 3, 2012
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.
Most Viewed
Most Emailed
- 69% of Employers Plan to Offer Healthcare Coverage After 2014
- Primary Care Docs Average More Hospital Revenue Than Specialists
- Building a Better Healthcare Board
- CMS Seeks to 'Rapidly Reduce' Medicare Spending with $1B in Grants
- Quiet ORs Better for Patient Safety
- Hospital Pricing Data Dump Won't Hurt You, Yet
- CMS Releases Hospital Pricing Data
- Evidence-Based Practice and Nursing Research: Avoiding Confusion
- Q&A: Catholic Health Initiatives' New Senior VP for Capital Finance
- Telemedicine is Retail Health Clinics' Newest Tool
