Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:51:30.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health Policy by Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Katie Keith  and
Joel McElvain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since its enactment, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has faced numerous legal challenges. Many of these lawsuits have focused on implementation of the law and the limits of executive power. Opponents challenged the ACA under the Obama Administration while supporters have turned to the courts to prevent the Trump Administration from undermining the law. In the meantime, Congress remains gridlocked over the ACA and many other critical health policy issues, leaving the executive branch to adopt its preferred policy approach and ultimately leading to lawsuits. This article briefly discusses the history of litigation over the ACA and some reasons why this litigation has been so enduring. The article then identifies other areas of health policy that are or could be future targets for litigation. Finally, the article comments on the potential impact of the courts on future health reform efforts.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue 3: A Bold Agenda for the Next Steps in Health Reform , Fall 2020 , pp. 443 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

P. Hamby and J. Acosta, “14 States Sue to Block Health Care Law,” CNN, March 23, 2010.Google Scholar
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).Google Scholar
King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015).Google Scholar
Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).Google Scholar
Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308 (2020) (holding that insurers are owed risk corridor payments); Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020).Google Scholar
M. Musumeci, Explaining Texas v. U.S.: A Guide to the Case Challenging the ACA, Kaiser Family Foundation, January 28, 2020, available at <https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issuebrief/explaining-texas-v-u-s-a-guide-to-the-case-challengingthe-aca/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020). The lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of 20 states, but two states — Maine and Wisconsin — withdrew as plaintiffs following the 2018 elections.+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).+The+lawsuit+was+initially+filed+on+behalf+of+20+states,+but+two+states+—+Maine+and+Wisconsin+—+withdrew+as+plaintiffs+following+the+2018+elections.>Google Scholar
Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III, Letter to Speaker Paul Ryan, June 7, 2018, available at <https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/ag_letter_to_the_hon-_paul_ryan.pdf> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
Letter from M. V. Totaro, U.S Dep't of Justice, to L. W. Cayce, Clerk of Court, Texas v, United States, No. 19-10011 (5th Cir. filed Mar. 25, 2019). See K. Keith, Trump Administration Asks Court to Strike Down Entire ACA, Health Affairs Blog, March 26, 2019, available at <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190326.572950/full/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020). (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Letter+from+M.+V.+Totaro,+U.S+Dep't+of+Justice,+to+L.+W.+Cayce,+Clerk+of+Court,+Texas+v,+United+States,+No.+19-10011+(5th+Cir.+filed+Mar.+25,+2019).+See+K.+Keith,+Trump+Administration+Asks+Court+to+Strike+Down+Entire+ACA,+Health+Affairs+Blog,+March+26,+2019,+available+at++(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
Texas v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 3d 579 (N.D. Tex. 2018).Google Scholar
Texas v. United States, 945 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Texas v. United States, 949 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
T.S. Jost and K. Keith, “The ACA and the Courts: Litigation's Effects on the Law's Implementation and Beyond,” Health Affairs 39, no. 3 (2020): 479-486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. Regan, ACA Litigation, A Summary With Particular Attention to Open Cases and New Issues, March 23, 2019, available at <https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/aca-litigation-a-summary-3-23-19.pdf> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
See West Virginia v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 827 F.3d 81 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1614 (2017); U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2015) (concluding that the House lacked standing to challenge a delay of enforcement of the employer mandate but could challenge the payment of cost-sharing reductions to insurers).Google Scholar
Ass’n for Community Affiliated Plans v. Dep't of Treasury, , __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 4032806 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 17, 2020) (upholding regulation expanding availability of short-term plans), appeal pending, No. 19-5212 (D.C. Cir. docketed July 30, 2019); New York v. Dep't of Labor, 363 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019) (invalidating regulation that expanded availability of association health plans), appeal pending, No. 19-5125 (D.C. Cir. docketed Apr. 30, 2019); California v. Trump, 267 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (denying preliminary injunction in suit challenging the termination of cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers).Google Scholar
City of Columbus v. Trump, 2020 WL 1820074 (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2020).Google Scholar
J. McElvain, The Administration's Recent Guidance on State Innovation Waivers under the Affordable Care Act Likely Violates the Act's Statutory Guardrails, Take Care Blog, December 7, 2018, available at <https://takecareblog.com/blog/the-administration-s-recent-guidance-on-state-innovationwaivers-under-the-affordable-care-act-likely-violates-the-acts-statutory-guardrails> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020). (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J.+McElvain,+The+Administration's+Recent+Guidance+on+State+Innovation+Waivers+under+the+Affordable+Care+Act+Likely+Violates+the+Act's+Statutory+Guardrails,+Take+Care+Blog,+December+7,+2018,+available+at++(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Jost, T.S. and Keith, K., “ACA Litigation: Politics Pursued through Other Means,” ACA Litigation: Politics Pursued through Other Means, 45, no. 4 (2020): 485–499.Google Scholar
Philbrick v. Azar, 397 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2019), appeal pending, No. 19-5295 (D.C. Cir. docketed Oct. 31, 2019); Gresham v. Azar, 363 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D.D.C. 2019), aff ‘d, --- F.3d ---, No. 19-5094 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 14, 2020); Stewart v. Azar, 366 F Supp. 3 125 (D.D.C. 2019), appeal dismissed as moot, No. 19-5095 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2020).Google Scholar
Gresham v. Azar, 950 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, State Medicaid Director Letter No. 20-001 (Jan. 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Division of TennCare, TennCare II Demonstration, Amendment 42: Modified Block Grant and Accountability, Nov. 20, 2019, available at <https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/tn/tn-tenncare-ii-pa10.pdf> (last visited July 16, 2020); Okla. Health Care Auth., SoonerCare 2.0 Healthy Adult Opportunity (HAO) Section 1115 Demonstration Application, Apr. 21, 2019, available at <https://www.okhca.org/soonercare2/> (last visited July 16, 2020).+(last+visited+July+16,+2020);+Okla.+Health+Care+Auth.,+SoonerCare+2.0+Healthy+Adult+Opportunity+(HAO)+Section+1115+Demonstration+Application,+Apr.+21,+2019,+available+at++(last+visited+July+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Merck & Co. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 962 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The drug price transparency rule that is the subject of this ruling is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Regulation to Require Drug Pricing Transparency, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,732 (May 10, 2019).Google Scholar
American Hospital Association v. Azar, 2020 WL 3429774 (D.D.C. June 23, 2020), appeal pending, No. 20-5193 (D.C. Cir. docketed June 30, 2020). The hospital price transparency rule that is the subject of this suit is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public, 84 Fed. Reg. 65,524 (Nov. 27, 2019).Google Scholar
Dep't of Health and Human Servs., Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority, 84 Fed. Reg. 23,170 (May 21, 2019).Google Scholar
New York v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 414 F. Supp. 3d 475 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2019), appeal pending, No. 20-41 (2d Cir. docketed Jan. 3, 2020); Washington v. Azar, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2019 WL 6219541 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2019), appeal pending, No. 20-35044 (9th Cir. docketed Jan. 21, 2020); San Francisco v. Azar, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2019).Google Scholar
Dep't of Health and Human Servs., Nondiscrimination in Health and Health Education or Activities, Delegation of Authority, 85 Fed. Reg. 37,160 (Jun. 19, 2020).Google Scholar
See K. Keith, ACA Litigation Round-Up: Part II, Health Affairs Blog, July 21, 2020, available at <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200721.330502/full/> (last visited Jul. 31, 2020).+(last+visited+Jul.+31,+2020).>Google Scholar
Dep't of Homeland Security, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019).Google Scholar
Cook Cnty. v. McAleenan, 417 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2019); New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 408 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 408 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (E.D. Wash. 2019); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 408 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump, 414 F. Supp. 3d 760 (D. Md. 2019). See W.E. Parmet, Supreme Court Allows Public Charge Rule to Take Effect While Appeals Continue, Health Affairs Blog, February 3, 2020, available at <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200131.845894/full/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020). (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cook+Cnty.+v.+McAleenan,+417+F.+Supp.+3d+1008+(N.D.+Ill.+2019);+New+York+v.+U.S.+Dep't+of+Homeland+Security,+408+F.+Supp.+3d+334+(S.D.N.Y.+2019);+Washington+v.+U.S.+Dep't+of+Homeland+Security,+408+F.+Supp.+3d+1191+(E.D.+Wash.+2019);+City+&+Cnty.+of+San+Francisco+v.+U.S.+Citizenship+&+Immigration+Servs.,+408+F.+Supp.+3d+1057+(N.D.+Cal.+2019);+Casa+de+Maryland,+Inc.+v.+Trump,+414+F.+Supp.+3d+760+(D.+Md.+2019).+See+W.E.+Parmet,+Supreme+Court+Allows+Public+Charge+Rule+to+Take+Effect+While+Appeals+Continue,+Health+Affairs+Blog,+February+3,+2020,+available+at++(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
Dep't of Homeland Security v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (2020).Google Scholar
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 4347264 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020).RV.Google Scholar
L. Sobel and A. Salganicoff, Litigation Challenging Title X Regulations, Kaiser Family Foundation, November 21, 2019, available at <https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/litigation-challenging-title-x-regulations/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
P.D. Clement, Federal “Balance Billing” Legislation: Constitutional Implications, June 2019, available at <https://www.asahq.org/-/media/sites/asahq/files/public/advocacy/federalactivities/2019-6-paul-clement-balance-billing-constitutionalimplications-june-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=A3D956A1C17508F3323855D989945079DCA16D1> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Rouillard, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2019).Google Scholar
See C.L. Young, Federal Surprise Billing Legislation Does Not Violate the Constitution, USC-Brookings Schaeffer on Health Policy, July 1, 2019, available at <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/usc-brookings-schaeffer-on-health-policy/2019/07/01/federal-surprise-billing-legislation-does-not-violate-the-constitution/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-94, tit. I §§ 608, 609 (2019).Google Scholar
S. Armour, “Trump's Proposed ACA Rules Could Boost Costs for Millions of People,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 17, 2019.Google Scholar
See R. Rayasam, “5 Republican AGs Who May Drown a Democratic White House,” Politico, January 25, 2020.Google Scholar
Inst. for Policy Integrity, Roundup: Trump-Era Agency Policy in the Courts (last updated Jan. 10, 2020), available at <https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).+(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar
See R. Wheeler, Judicial Appointments in Trump's First Three Years: Myths and Realities, Brookings Institution, January 28, 2020, available at <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/01/28/judicial-appointments-in-trumps-firstthree-years-myths-and-realities/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020). (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+R.+Wheeler,+Judicial+Appointments+in+Trump's+First+Three+Years:+Myths+and+Realities,+Brookings+Institution,+January+28,+2020,+available+at++(last+visited+Feb.+14,+2020).>Google Scholar