Upcoming Event: 11/01/12 Obamacare on Trial – Book talk and panel discussion with Einer Elhauge

Obamacare on Trial

Book talk and panel discussion by Einer Elhauge, Carroll and Milton Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (and founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center)

Panelists:

November 1, 2012, 6:00 pm

Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East A

Harvard Law School

1585 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA

Sponsored by the Harvard Law School Library

Florida’s Constitutional Amendment on Healthcare: Why It Still Matters after the Supreme Court’s Healthcare Decision

By Katie Booth

This November, Floridians will vote on whether to amend the Florida constitution “to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage.” Similar constitutional amendments are on the ballot in Alabama and Wyoming and have already been adopted in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Ohio. While Florida’s proposed amendment has not received much attention after the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the individual mandate requirement of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), these state constitutional amendments should not be written off entirely.

The Florida amendment could have some effect on the upcoming presidential election. Since the amendment is included on the ballot, it could help win votes for Romney and other Republican candidates by reminding undecided swing voters about the ACA as they are filling in the ballot. If the amendment passes—which requires sixty percent of the popular vote—it will almost certainly be seen as a referendum on the ACA that will give ammunition to Republicans in future elections.

The existence of these state amendments and other similar legislation also raises the stakes of future Supreme Court litigation over the ACA. While the Supreme Court may be loath to revisit the ACA anytime soon, opponents are likely to continue challenging different aspects of the ACA that have not yet been litigated. Some of these cases could eventually end up in the Supreme Court, especially if there is ambiguity around whether the ACA preempts certain aspects of state constitutional amendments.

Read More

Using the Taxing Power for Public Health

By Scott Burris

In a Perspective in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, Michelle Mello and Glenn Cohen, both professors at Harvard, write about the prospects for using the constitutional Taxing Power to adopt innovative laws to advance public health objectives.  Cueing off the Supreme Court’s decision in the Affordable Care Act litigation, Mello — who is also a member of PHLR’s Methods Core — and Cohen write that the Court appears to have opened the door for “more targeted, assertive interventions to promote public health” under the Taxing Power than Congress has previously pursued. “For example, instead of merely taxing tobacco sales, the federal government could require individuals to pay a tax penalty unless they declare that they haven’t used tobacco products during the year. It could give a tax credit to people who submit documentation that their bodymass index is in the normal range or has decreased during the year or to diabetic persons who document that their glycated hemoglobin levels are controlled. It could tax individuals who fail to purchase gym memberships. …These strategies depart from traditional uses of taxes by targeting omissions and noncommercial activities that are important drivers of chronic disease.”  Read the full article online at the New England Journal of Medicine online.

Quality Control on the Back-End via the ACA and on the Front-End via Tort Litigation

By Vickie J. Williams

I am back after a brief hiatus for the Jewish holidays. L’Shanah Tova to all my readers who have just celebrated the Jewish New Year.

The first Monday in October is, of course, a special day for all of us legal eagles–the Supreme Court is back in session. The other significant thing about October 1 for those interested in health law is that hospitals will now be fined if too many of their Medicare patients are readmitted within 30 days of discharge due to complications. As reported by the Associated Press, this is part of the Affordable Care Act’s push to incentivize quality improvement while trying to save taxpayers money. Right now, admissions for only three medical conditions are subject to the penalty: heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia. Penalties are held to a maximum of 1% of the hospital’s Medicare payments for now, but will rise to a maximum of 3% of Medicare payments over several years. This attempt to control quality of care on the back-end constitutes a marked contrast with the way reimbursement policy has worked over the last several decades to discourage hospitals from keeping patients in beds for “social” reasons, such as having nobody to care for them at home if they are discharged. Many Medicare hospital readmissions are due to non-compliant behavior by fragile patients with few resources to help them once they leave the hospital, something that is not really subject to the hospital’s control, and says nothing about the hospital’s quality of care for the patient. For decades, Medicare payment policy, which generally pays hospitals the same amount for caring for a patient regardless of how long he or she is in the hospital, has encouraged speedy discharges. This is touted as a way to save costs. Apparently, the new policy on payments for readmission is an acknowledgement that there is both a financial and a human cost to treating medically and socially fragile people in the express lanes of health care. It remains to be seen whether the penalties result in better quality care, or significant savings, but surely they will result in increased work for hospital social workers and discharge planners. Read More

Would you rather medical school train your PCP to have good hands or a good bedside manner?

Last week NPR covered a story highlighting how medical education is morphing in order to adapt to the unmet demand for primary care physicians driven (at least in part) by the increased access to primary care that will be ushered in under the ACA.  It may be surprising to some to learn that many of the most prestigious medical schools like Johns Hopkins and Harvard do not have a primary care program; however, as reported by NPR, medical schools may soon rethink this hole in their curriculum in the face of changing demands upon the health care system and its accompanying incentives for young physicians to enter primary care.   Mount Sinai School of Medicine is leading the way in this regard by launching a new department of family medicine in June.

Intuitively, changing the medical education system to produce more primary care physicians will further goals of the ACA by increasing access to primary care, and therefore improving overall public health and diminishing cost by decreasing emergency room care for conditions that could have been treated less expensively or avoided altogether by increasing access to preventative services.  These are the arguments we’ve heard repeatedly by the champions of the ACA and by the Obama administration, particularly through its vision for the Prevention and Public Health Fund which was intended to bolster the pipeline of primary care physicians before being gutted earlier this year.

Read More

Will ACA Create a Doctor Shortage–And If So, What Should We Do About It?

By Jennifer S. Bard

Being in my native land of Connecticut reminds me that Mark Twain is famously, if inaccurately, quoted as saying that everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it.  Nowhere is this concept more true today than in the handwringing over the coming shortage of physicians following the passage of Affordable Care Act.  We hear dire predictions that the patients who now have access to health care will flood the system resulting in poor care not just for them, but for those among us who were lucky enough to already have health insurance.  The American Academy of Family Physicians has recently expressed its concern that the shortage will be made up by nurse practitioners rather than physicians.

This is a situation where the shortage, if it exists, has nothing to do with fear of law suits.  Applications to U.S. medical schools have been steadily increasing.  Moreover, the shortage isn’t of doctors in general, it is of primary care physicians.  There are still a fair number of dermatologists and plastic surgeons, but not so many physicians who provide the kind of primary and preventive care that actually improve the public’s health.

Uwe Reinhardt, the Princeton health care economist, has been following this issue closely and in a series of posts for the New York Times’ Econmix Blog has been aggressively skeptical about the existence of the shortage as well as the actions taken so far by the Federal Government to address it.  He also questions the need both for the residency system as currently structured and for the benefit to the public of subsidizing it through Medicare given what a poor job it does in producing the primary care doctors the public really needs.  Last week, he undertook an extensive analysis of medical school debt which showed that by charging students intending to be high paid specialists the same as those who might go into primary care has created a loan burden that makes it difficult for any but the most dedicated to turn away from training for the most lucrative specialty for which they can qualify. Read More

ACA Litigation – Oklahoma’s “Federalism Unit” Piles On

By Nicole Huberfeld

We Who Follow ACA Litigation will continue to be in business.  [On September 19], Oklahoma’s Attorney General sought leave to amend the state’s original complaint regarding the individual mandate.  Now the state claims that the tax subsidies offered to those qualifying for financial assistance to obtain insurance through the exchanges are impermissible.  This amended complaint builds on an existing thread of new challenges that was promoted before NFIB was decided.  (The amended complaint also asks the court to consider the state’s nullification law, which should be struck down based on the Supremacy Clause.)  The ACA challengers that never advanced beyond district court have been seeking leave to amend their complaints with regularity.  Last week I posted about the Pacific Legal Foundation’s new strategy, which is rooted in the Orgination Clause.  (The case was also noted over at Balkinization.)

Oklahoma’s amended complaint is grounded in theories advanced by Jonathan Adler and the Cato Institute.  The argument is that tax credits to support the purchase of health insurance through qualified health plans in the exchanges are only available when the exchanges are created by the states, not the federal government.  They claim that section 1311 of the ACA only contemplated providing tax subsidies in state-run exchanges to incentivize states to create the exchanges and that the federally-established exchanges cannot offer the same tax benefit.  In testimony to Congress, they argued the problem is that the proposed IRS regulation implementing the subsidies for people from 100-400% of the FPL in the exchanges applies to both state and federally-run exchanges, not just state exchanges.  Thus, they claim that the IRS has exceeded its statutory authority.  As Tim Jost noted here, the ACA did intend to permit tax credits in federal exchanges.  I agree with Tim’s analysis and would add that the Anti-Injunction Act probably would apply to this provision; unlike the “penalty” of the individual mandate, this is actually described as a “tax.”  Also, the states are not the appropriate parties to raise this issue; individuals benefit from tax credits, individuals would need to pursue the alleged problem.

Read More

The Use of Electronic Health Records Is Increasing Medicare Billing: Is It Also Increasing the Amount of Care Physicians Provide?

 By: Katie Booth

The New York Times recently reported that the switch to Electronic Health Records (“EHRs”) may be contributing to rising Medicare costs. The Times described two hospitals where the portion of patients billed at the highest reimbursement rate rose by over 40% when the hospitals adopted EHRs. The Times also reported that in hospitals that switched to EHRs between 2006 and 2010, Medicare payments rose 47%. Medicare payments for hospitals that did not adopt EHRs rose 32%.

There are several potential explanations for this increase in billing. One is that doctors are simply doing a better job electronically recording the same care they’ve always given, leading to higher Medicare billing. Another is that some doctors are abusing the EHR system by upcoding patients or copying and pasting examination histories, fraudulently increasing Medicare billing.

A third explanation is that EHR systems actually change the way doctors practice medicine. In the process of asking doctors for particular data points, EHR systems may remind doctors to look for particular symptoms or to provide particular treatments that doctors may not have considered otherwise. It is thus possible that EHRs have led to higher Medicare bills because they have increased the amount of time doctors spend diagnosing and treating patients.

Read More

The Fallacy of Fearing “Industrialized” Medicine

By Patrick O’Leary

Looking back over last month’s health-related news, two articles published on The Atlantic’s website stand out to illustrate a tension that has received a great deal of focus in Medicare reform circles, and that seems to be a political sticking point for many otherwise promising cost-reduction strategies. In his September 10th article The Fallacy of Treating Health Care as an Industry, Professor Gunderman of Indiana University criticizes a recent Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) report suggesting that our medical system could be providing better care at lower cost if it could only learn a few lessons from other industries. Professor Gunderman’s critique invokes the specter of mechanical medicine: an “industrial assembly line approach to medicine” where the pursuit of efficient care utterly eclipses the human element, the “communication and relationships” that make the practice of medicine more than just an industry. Similar arguments can be and have been deployed against any resource-sensitive reform of medical practice, as the “death panels” debate from several years ago well illustrates.

While these kinds of human-relationship based critiques of efforts to make medical care more efficient may be relevant in the context of more extreme proposals of medical rationing, they are misguided as applied to recommendations like those made in the IOM report. Read More

Taking Liberties (and Libertarians) Seriously

By Abby Moncrieff

First, an uncontroversial statement: Despite academics’ resistance, libertarian arguments played a huge role in the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision. That seems obvious. Chief Justice Roberts and the four dissenters based their Commerce Clause analyses largely on notions of individual freedom, asserting that the federal government should not be allowed to force individuals to purchase private products.

But to heath scholars, that line of analysis is incredibly irksome and even a bit dissonant. Health insurance isn’t like ordinary private products, we cry; it is intimately connected to health care regulation, and forcing people to have health insurance, unlike forcing them to buy (or even eat) broccoli, will make them healthier! Congress made this point explicitly, finding that “[t]he economy loses up to $207[ billion] a year because of the poorer health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured”! Failing to eat broccoli doesn’t make you unhealthy the same way that failing to carry insurance does, especially if you’re substituting broccoli with green beans instead of donuts. And eating broccoli doesn’t make you healthy the same way that carrying insurance does, especially if you’re also eating steaks (or eating more than 2000 calories a day of pure broccoli). So, Supreme Court, you just got it wrong. The individual mandate isn’t a crass attempt to get people to buy something. It is, like countless other uncontroversial provisions of the U.S. Code, an attempt to improve the health and longevity of the American people. If you don’t think Medicare (or a Certificate of Need law) infringes liberty, you shouldn’t think the individual mandate does.

Here’s the problem: The Solicitor General didn’t make that argument.

Read More