Implementing Health Reform: Antidiscrimination Litigation Under Section 1557 Of The ACA

Dozens of cases have been filed over the past five years challenging various aspects of the Affordable Care Act and its implementation. Two of these have made it to the Supreme Court (three if you count Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius). In its 2012, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision, the Court upheld the ACA’s individual responsibility requirement but seriously undermined the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults by making it a state option. King v. Burwell, which the Court will decide in the next couple of months, threatens to withdraw tax credits from millions of Americans who live in states with federally facilitated exchanges. And dozens of cases remain challenging the federal regulation accommodating religious objections to the provision of contraceptives — an issue likely to make it back to the Supreme Court at least one more time. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Gilead Sciences But, as reported here recently, the wave of anti-ACA litigation seems to have crested. The federal courts have in recent months dismissed a string of cases challenging the ACA, as the courts increasingly conclude that the issues raised by these cases are political grievances, not legal claims. However, as the wave of anti-ACA litigation recedes, a new wave (or perhaps wavelet) of litigation is appearing– litigation claiming the protection of the ACA rather than challenging it. On May 4, 2015, Judge Stewart Dalzell of the Ea...
Source: Health Affairs Blog - Category: Health Management Authors: Tags: Equity and Disparities Following the ACA ACA litigation Gilead section 1557 SEPTA Source Type: blogs