Skip to Main Content

Tag Archives: insurance

01.20.10

Enact the Senate Bill, but Demand National Health Care Reform Implementation

By Tim Jost

One of the most important differences between the current House and Senate health reform bills is their approaches to the enforcement of the insurance reform provisions of the bill and to implementation of the health insurance exchanges. Briefly, the House bill would create a new federal agency, the Health Choices Administration, to enforce the insurance […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

01.10.10

Why Employers are Unlikely to Use the Exchanges to Purchase Insurance for their Employees

By Tim Jost

Under both the House and Senate bills, employers are permitted to purchase health insurance for their employees through the exchange. The exchange has been seen as having real potential for helping small employers. The CBO estimated that 9 million employees of small employers would get coverage through the exchange under the House bill and five […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

01.04.10

Covering the Chronically Ill: An Interview with John V. Jacobi

By Lester Feder

John V. Jacobi is Dorothea Dix Professor of Health Law and Policy at the Seton Hall University School of Law. The O’Neill Institute’s Lester Feder spoke with him about health reform and covering those with chronic illness. Lester Feder: Generally speaking, what do you think of what it is looking like we’re going to get […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

01.03.10

Confiscatory Insurance Regulation, Further Thoughts

By Tim Jost

Mark’s response to Richard Epstein’s observations on the constitutionality of the Senate bill certainly does the job, but I will add a few notes. First, although Epstein’s article is much more attentive to the actual details of the law than is much of Epstein’s writing on health care topics, he is selectively attentive, as Mark […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

01.02.10

Confiscatory Insurance Regulation: Yet Another Constitutional Attack, Rebutted

By Mark Hall

The formidable Richard Epstein has launched the latest attack on the constitutionality of health care reform.  He argues that minimum medical loss ratios coupled with tougher insurance standards are “confiscatory” rate regulation that vioate the Takings Clause or substantive due process.   As with other right-wing constitutional attacks, he suggests this conclusion is firmly based in […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

12.30.09

Public Health and Health Reform: A Preliminary Scorecard

By Peter Jacobson

In this post, I offer my sense of how the House and Senate health reform bills compare on their public health provisions. Before submitting my scorecard so far, there are some programs/details not covered in my earlier posts (16 and 26 December) that should be mentioned. Clinics Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Both bills would […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

12.14.09

The Amended Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (really wonky stuff)

By Tim Jost

The Senate bill enacts its health insurance reforms primarily by amending Part A of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act. Conforming amendments in section 1562 apply Part A to ERISA plans (except for sections 2716 and 2718 and others that don’t apply to group health plans), and to insurers in the individual market. […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

12.04.09

Remedies Against Health Plans Under the Senate Bill

By Tim Jost

Section 2719 of the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HR 3590, provides for appeals of coverage determinations and claims. This section explicitly applies to group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual insurance coverage. Section 1551(a) of the bill incorporates the definitions found in 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-91, which defines […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:

11.24.09

Senate Bill’s Interstate Commerce Findings

By Mark Hall

Here is a link to the Senate’s health care bill.  Perusing some of its 2000 pages, I came across the following, SEC. 1501 (p. 320), which should put to rest any argument that an individual mandate exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause: Congress makes the following findings: In GENERAL.—The individual responsibility requirement provided for in […]

Categories:
Tags:
Thematic Areas:
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5

The views reflected in this expert column are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law or Georgetown University. This blog is solely informational in nature, and not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed and retained attorney in your state or country.

See the full disclaimer and terms of use.