On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Atlanta heard arguments in the lawsuit that was brought by Florida and 25 other states. The three-judge panel expressed concern that some of the features of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would have difficulty standing up to constitutional scrutiny. In addition to Atlanta there are two other federal panels that are set to hear challenges to the health reform law.
At the forefront of this court’s review is the “individual mandate” which requires everyone to carry health insurance or be subject to financial penalties. The acting U.S. Solicitor General who represented Health and Human Services, indicated that the individual mandate was a tax and therefore constitutional. This position is curious as it contradicts the message from the Obama administration in which individual taxes would not be increased as a result of the health reform law. See the CNN article for more details.
It’s been five years since the landmark legislation that catapulted Massachusetts to the head of the national healthcare discussion. In 2006, a republican Governor and a democratic legislature joined together to pass Massachusetts health reform. The initial intent of Chapter 58 was the expansion of healthcare to all residents of the Commonwealth. At the time there was little conversation about the overall cost or quality of the care being delivered. Sound familiar? This is not dissimilar to what we saw only a few short year’s later on the federal level.
On this fifth anniversary, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation released Health Reform in Massachusetts: Assessing the Results. This is a brief, very readable summary of some of the surveys conducted by various state agencies. Below are some of the highlights that have particular relevance to Read more…
A federal judge in VA declared “the individual mandate” unconstitutional yesterday. “The Individual Mandate” is a component of the Health Reform bill that requires each American citizen to carry health insurance by 2014. The passage of the landmark Health Reform Bill earlier this year has resulted in close to 20 lawsuits around the country. This recent ruling by the Honorable Henry Hudson, however, is especially noteworthy as it is the first by a federal judge. The lawsuit was supported by a VA state law that was passed in anticipation of the health reform bill that made it unlawful to require its citizens to purchase health insurance. The US government’s position is that virtually every citizen is in the health care system. Even if they do not have health insurance coverage currently, they eventually need medical care at which point they become part of the health care system. Both sides acknowledge that this will likely end up in front of the Supreme Court prior to the year 2014 when the individual coverage component will become effective.
Anita Verheul discusses a recently interview for an article that appeared in the Boston Business Journal regarding how employers are looking at dental plans relative to the rest of the benefit package that they offer.
In early November the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA) announced that it would not hire tobacco users beginning in January of 2011. This announcement has gotten a lot of attention locally and has created a fire storm of controversy, with equal measures of supporters and detractors. Although this practice isn’t commonplace it isn’t entirely new either. A number of employers have adopted so-called ‘lifestyle bans’ over the last few years. Most have cited concern over rising health care costs, a commitment to health and wellness initiatives, or both. In response, over half of our states have adopted laws against the practice of employers making hiring decisions based on the applicant’s off duty activities. Currently, Massachusetts doesn’t have any specific bans against employers implementing lifestyle statutes as part of its hiring practice.
Everyone seems to agree that health insurance premiums are too expensive and that the rate of increase is much too high. But who’s to blame for this? You might hear the buzz about the unhealthy state of the American population and our historic high levels of obesity and diabetes and other chronic health conditions. You might even see a little finger pointing at the drug companies for their huge marketing budgets and direct-to-consumer advertising. But by far, most of the blame is levied on the health insurance companies. But there’s a major piece of the healthcare equation that is missing in most of the dialog; that of the healthcare provider.
We saw this nationally with the recent passage of the PPACA (Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act). Quite a bit of the legislation Read more…
Click above to subscribe to our RSS feed through your reader to stay up to date.
Welcome to WGA InsureBlog
WGA InsureBlog is powered by William Gallagher Associates, a leading provider of insurance brokerage, risk management and employee benefit services to companies with complex risks and dynamic needs. www.WGAins.com
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Atlanta heard arguments in the lawsuit that was brought by Florida and 25 other states. The three-judge panel expressed concern that some of the features of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would have difficulty standing up to constitutional scrutiny. In addition to Atlanta there are two other federal panels that are set to hear challenges to the health reform law.
