THCB

Categories

Tag: The Supreme Court Challenge

Size Matters: Hospital Consolidation and Physicians

• 2

By Richard Reece, MD

As health reform evolves,  I’ve been watching multihospital systems grow in size and power and speculating what their gigantic size means.

Here, as of 2008, were the 10 largest systems in revenue size

1. Veterans Administration Hospitals,   $40.7 billion
2. Hospital Corporation of America,  $28.4 billion
3. Ascension Health, $12.7 billion
4. Community Health,  $10.8 billion
5. New York Presbyterian, $8.4 billion
6. Tenet Health, $8.3 billion
7. Catholic Health Initiatives,  $7.8 billon
8. Catholic Health West,  $7.6 billion
9. Sutter Health, $6.9 billion
10. Mayo, $6.1 billion

What strikes me about this list are that such giant systems like Kaiser, the Cleveland Clinic,  Johns Hopkins,  Duke, and Health Partners in Boston don’t even appear, and the large  number of Catholic multisystem chains.  The revenues of multihospital systems has undoubtedly grown since 2008.   In 2011, hospital  mergers and acquisitions hit an all time high.

Continue reading…

The Irrelevance of the Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare

• 3

By Dave Chase

When I’m not writing pieces here, my “day job” is working with healthcare providers recognized as Disruptive Innovators who are reinventing healthcare and slaying the healthcare cost beast as a byproduct. In some cases, these are entrepreneurs. In others, they are pioneers within existing healthcare providers.

Even though this is the month that the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it is striking this fact rarely that ever comes up in discussions with healthcare providers.

Philip Betbeze described this in a HealthLeaders Media piece entitled “Disruptive Healthcare Innovations Trump SCOTUS Worries“   when he asked senior executives about their perspective regarding upcoming the Supreme Court decision.

But when you ask one question, you might get an interesting answer about something else entirely. That’s the way my sources for this off-the-record conversation surprised me. They agreed they are much more concerned about disruptive innovation than what nine people in black robes are going to say at an indeterminate date sometime this month.

The roundtables, set up for me by the good folks at Premier Inc., which is holding its annual “Breakthroughs” conference here in Nashville this week, revealed that these leaders fear less what the government may do in response to whatever decision the Court makes, and more what nontraditional competitors may do to their resource and capital-heavy healthcare delivery systems.

Continue reading…

Awaiting the Court’s Decision on Healthcare

• 13

By David Merritt

The Supreme Court has already decided the fate of the health reform law, and in a few short weeks the rest of us will know whether it is upheld, struck down entirely, or badly damaged. Of the possible decisions, four are the most likely and each would have significant ramifications.

1)  The Court could uphold the law. Prior to oral arguments, this was the conventional wisdom. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s stinging questions led many to change this view, but he has surprised Court watchers before.

If he springs another surprise and supports the individual mandate, the law’s implementation would continue unabated. States that have waited for the Court’s decision would start moving on exchanges and essential benefits.

HHS would issue more regulations: on subsidies, employer penalties, insurance requirements, and others. However, it is common knowledge that many of the more controversial rules are being slow walked until after November 6th so as to not complicate President Obama’s reelection chances.

Upholding the law would certainly raise the stakes of the November elections. Should Democrats hold the Senate and/or President Obama win reelection, it’s likely the law would be permanently ensconced. On the other hand, should Republicans control the House and Senate and Governor Romney win the presidency, they will try to repeal the law or gut it through budget reconciliation before major provisions take effect in 2014.

But based on the “train wreck” of oral arguments, it seems unlikely that the law will escape the Court unscathed. It is more likely that the law will be damaged.  The question is, to what extent?

Continue reading…

The President’s Health Care Law is Hurting Our Economy, and Must Be Fully Repealed

• 14

By John Boehner

It’s no secret that our nation’s economy is struggling, and the president’s health care law, enacted in 2010, is making things worse — raising health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers.  The only way to change this is by repealing ObamaCare in its entirety.

There has been much renewed media focus on the president’s health care law in recent months because the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on the question of whether the law is constitutional.  But the American people have never lost their focus on it.  They didn’t like the law when it was rammed through Congress by President Obama and a Democratic majority in 2010, and according to most public opinion surveys, they like it even less now.

It’s not difficult to understand why most Americans remain opposed to ObamaCare.  Many question its constitutionality; I’m certainly one of them.  But the law’s negative impact on Americans’ daily lives is what I hear about the most.

Americans are dealing every day with the tough realities of life in the Obama economy.  They’re facing rising prices for food, gas, college tuition and health care.  Many are out of work.  And among those fortunate enough to have jobs, many are struggling to keep them.  Couple this with the ever-present specter of higher taxes — which are constantly being threatened by the president and his advisors — and the possibility of another downgrade in our nation’s credit rating as a consequence of the national debt that has exploded under the president’s spending policies, and it’s a pretty grim picture.  If you’re reading this, you know exactly what I mean.

Continue reading…

Health Care and Constitutional Chaos

• 2

By Eric Segall & Aaron E. Carroll

The Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will likely be handed down on the last day of this year’s term. If the Court finds that the ACA—either in whole or in part—violates the Constitution, the health care industry will be shaken to its core. And, no matter what legal justification the Court uses to invalidate the ACA, the structure of constitutional law will be severely undercut. The resulting medical and legal chaos will be expensive, divisive, and completely unnecessary. Nothing in the text, history or structure of the Constitution warrants the Court overturning Congress’s effort to address our national health care problems.

For the health care industry, a decision striking down the entire ACA would be an absolute disaster. Physicians, hospitals, and private companies have been shifting how they practice medicine in anticipation of the ACA’s implementation. They’ve been creating accountable care organizations,[1] envisioning a significant reduction in uncompensated care, and enjoying increased Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement in primary care settings.[2] That will all vanish if the ACA is struck down. Moreover, seniors will pay more for prescription drugs and young adults will be taken off their parents’ insurance. The private insurance industry, which has seen its market shrink significantly over the last decade,[3] will see a real chance to reverse that trend disappear. According to one estimate, if the ACA is overturned, insurers may lose over $1 trillion in revenues between 2013 and 2020.[4]

Continue reading…

The Psychology of the ObamaCare Debate

• 34

By Peter Ubel, MD

“How can the government make us buy health insurance?  What gives them that right?”

Sitting on my left while our airplane raced above the clouds, Elizabeth was clearly upset about Obamacare.  She wondered why the bill had to be so long, and why Obama would endorse a plan that doubled her health insurance costs.  But nothing vexed her more than the individual mandate.

At least that’s what I though until I spoke with her at greater length, and she revealed a profound truth to me about people’s attitudes towards the mandate and towards Obamacare more generally: she showed me that deep down she liked the idea of the mandate, once she realized its important role in accomplishing goals people on all sides of the political spectrum care about deeply.

We were flying towards North Carolina the day before the Supreme Court held its oral arguments on Obama’s healthcare plan.  Elizabeth had heard a great deal about the mandate.  She read The Wall Street Journal regularly, in part because it was so relevant to her work in banking.  And she enjoyed watching Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, but not Hannity, who she thought was “too extreme”.  She was by no means a conservative extremist.  She had major concerns about the banking industry for example, and as a Christian felt strongly that income inequality is a moral problem that neither party was addressing in an effective manner.  But she was solidly Republican, no doubt about that, and she agreed with most people in that political party that Obamacare was hurting the economy.  And above all she believed the health insurance mandate was “un-American.”

Continue reading…

Obama Supporters Put High Court on Trial

• 44

By Betsy McCaughey


As the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates the Obama healthcare law, the court itself is on trial.

Obamacare supporters are attacking the justices as “hacks dressed up in black robes,” calling for limits on their life tenure, and claiming judicial review is undemocratic.

Worse, President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius are shoveling money into implementing the law as fast as possible and refuse to discuss an alternative. That’s irresponsible. What’s needed now is not court bashing but contingency planning.

The Obama administration and allies in Congress have nine weeks to plan how to pick up the pieces on a vast array of health insurance issues. It’s the President’s duty to have a plan. It will signal his respect for the nation’s system of checks and balances — something he has utterly failed to show.

Continue reading…

A Health Care Setup Both Sides Could Live With

• 5

By Donald H. Taylor Jr.

Before long the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the health care reform law, a decision that will have tremendous policy ramifications and could reshape the presidential election.

But even if the court overturns the Affordable Care Act, as some observers predict, that won’t change the reality that our country’s health care system is seriously broken. In short, regardless of what the court says, people will still be getting sick, costs will keep rising and too many people will be uninsured. And our federal budget will never be sustainable if we can’t bring health care costs under control.

The Democratic Party and progressives invested a huge amount of political capital in getting Congress to pass the ACA in 2010. The act was not perfect, but it did provide a start to the many years of work needed to create a sustainable health care system. In speeches, Republicans and conservatives acknowledge that our health care system is unsustainable and have spoken of a need to “replace”; however, in the two years since the ACA passed, they have failed to be clear about what they actually favor.

As we look to what we’re actually going to do about the problem, what’s clear is that progressives and conservatives both need to move beyond their familiar positions to find a new kind of deal. This seems politically impossible before November, but politicians on both sides would do themselves – and the country – a big favor if they quietly started devising a solution that everyone can live with, even if neither side gets everything it wants.

For progressives, universal coverage has always been the Holy Grail and dream deferred, not just of health policy, but of all social policy. I don’t think conservatives have a health policy interest that is so clear and heartfelt as universal coverage is for progressives, but if I had to take a stab, I think it is their belief that people don’t have enough “skin in the game” and are therefore wasteful of other people’s money.

Continue reading…

What if We Regulated Legal Services Like Health Care?

• 18

By John R. Graham

Well, the future of American health care is now controlled by lawyers. That may not be news – doctors, drug makers, and medical-device makers have long complained about the cost of lawsuits. But this different: The future of PPACA is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Hundreds of lawyers billed thousands of hours analyzing and preparing briefs for the case. And that’s after countless hours spent by Congressional staff lawyers putting the bill together in 2009 and 2010. The result? A “law” so confusing that even the legislators – themselves mostly lawyers – could not bother to even try to read it.

It makes one think: If the lawyers are designing the health-care system, shouldn’t they be forced to operate under regulations similar to those they’re imposing? How, for example, do lawyers get paid? Today, they negotiate fees with clients. That hardly seems fair. In health care, doctors don’t negotiate fees with patients, they get paid according to an opaque schedule determined by health plans. Lawyers should do the same. The solution is “legal insurance”. After all, who amongst us knows when we’ll need a lawyer? It is often an unpredictable expense, and yet the “market” seems to have failed to provide such insurance. Government must intervene.

Continue reading…

A Response to Critics on the Founding Fathers and Health Insurance Mandates

• 10

By Einer Elhauge

Last week, I wrote an article describing several purchase mandates adopted by the framers in early Congresses, including two medical insurance mandates imposed on shipowners and seamen. These examples rebut the claim by challengers to Obamacare that purchase mandates are wholly unprecedented in a way that allows us to infer they are unconstitutional, a claim on which they rely heavily because there is no text, history, or case law that affirmatively supports a ban on purchase mandates.

Not everyone agrees with me. Some comments to my article, here and elsewhere, have suggested that these early medical mandates are distinguishable from Obamacare because they reflect Congress’ power to enact maritime law, not its power to regulate commerce. But the Constitution’s list of congressional powers nowhere includes a maritime law clause. Early Supreme Court cases all held that the Commerce Clause was what gives Congress the power to enact maritime law. For example, in The Daniel Ball, a case decided in 1871, the Court stated that navigable waters form “a continued highway for commerce, both with other States and with foreign countries, and is thus brought under the direct control of Congress in the exercise of its commercial power. That power authorizes all appropriate legislation for the protection or advancement of either interstate or foreign commerce…” In The Lottawanna, the Court held that it was under this commerce clause power that Congress had enacted statutes that determined “the rights and duties of seamen” and “the limitations of the responsibility of shipowners.” These early medical mandates were thus enacted under the very Commerce Clause at issue in the Obamacare case.

Continue reading…