United States: Affordable Care Act Hangs in the Balance After Oral Arguments

From Monday, March 26, 2012, through Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States held six hours of oral arguments in three pending cases involving constitutional challenges to the federal health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (the Act). The three cases pit the federal government against 26 state attorney generals and a powerful trade association representing business owners. This article summarizes the issues addressed in each day of the hearing. The outcome of these cases cannot be predicted, but the discussion here provides some insight into the challenges that the Court faces in deciding the issues.

The Court organized the hearings sequentially in order of the issues presented with respect to the individual mandate. On Day 1, the Court heard arguments on a procedural issue of whether the Anti-Injunction Act prevents the states from challenging the individual mandate before its requirements are imposed. On Day 2, the Court assumed for purposes of the arguments that the Anti-Injunction Act would not prevent the states from challenging the individual mandate provision before it is imposed and addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision itself. On Day 3, the Court assumed for purposes of the arguments that the individual mandate could not be upheld as constitutional and addressed the question of whether the individual mandate could be severed from the law or whether the entire law must be struck down. In addition, on Day 3 the Court addressed the issue of whether the federal government can impose Medicaid expansion upon the states, which is unrelated to the individual mandate.

Day 1: Anti-Injunction Act

The Court heard 90 minutes of oral argument regarding the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act prevents a legal challenge to a tax until the tax has actually been imposed. The payments imposed by the individual mandate on those who do not obtain insurance will not be collected until April 2015. If these payments are found to be a tax, then the Anti-Injunction Act will apply.

Interestingly, all parties involved agree that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. The federal government maintains that the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage is a "penalty" and not a "tax," and the states argue their challenge is on separate grounds that do not touch the Anti-Injunction Act (i.e., that the individual mandate and expansion of Medicaid are unconstitutional). Nevertheless, the Court appointed an independent advocate (amicus curiae) to argue that the Court should dismiss the case "for lack of jurisdiction" because the payments are a tax and not a penalty. If the Court finds that the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the individual mandate, the entire challenge of the Act would be dismissed, at least until 2015 when the payments are assessed and collected and a new suit is brought. Such a controversial finding would force the future of health reform back in the hands of the legislative process until 2015, yet this finding is questionable after Day 1. As Justice Breyer noted, "Congress has nowhere used the word 'tax.' What it says is penalty."

Day 2: Individual Mandate

The individual mandate provision of the Act amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide that a U.S. citizen or resident (with some exceptions) who fails to maintain a minimum level of health insurance must pay a penalty. The requirement to obtain insurance can be met through enrollment in an employer-sponsored plan, individual coverage, Medicare, Medicaid or other federally recognized program or plan of insurance.

In two hours of oral arguments, the parties and the justices struggled with the question of whether the individual mandate is within Congress' powers either under the Commerce Clause or taxing power permitted by the U.S. Constitution. The "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The "Power to Tax and Spend Clause" grants Congress the power to collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States. The federal government is arguing that Congress has the authority to enact the individual mandate under both of these authorities. The question of whether the individual mandate is within Congress' constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause depends upon whether the activity that it purports to regulate — the purchase of insurance — is "commerce" and whether the Commerce Clause includes the ability to require an individual to engage in that commerce. The crux of the issue turns on whether the particular activity here — the requirement to purchase health insurance — is within the boundaries of the powers enumerated to Congress under the Constitution or whether this is an example of plenary power by Congress.

Many Supreme Court experts and pundits have suggested that the Court will split along ideological lines — i.e., four justices ruling in favor of the individual mandate (Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor) and four striking it down (Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts) — leaving Justice Kennedy as the deciding vote. The questions posed by the justices in oral arguments appeared to support this theory.

Given the composition of the Court, the questions and statements of Justice Kennedy may be particularly insightful in discerning how the final decision might look. For instance, within minutes of the commencement of oral arguments, Justice Kennedy asked pointedly, "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" The parties and the justices appeared to agree that, once someone has purchased insurance, Congress can regulate it, but under the individual mandate, individuals are first required to purchase insurance. Justice Kennedy again appeared skeptical, stating that "the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act ... here the government is saying the federal government has a duty to tell citizens it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way." Justice Kennedy also suggested that because "the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce" is "unprecedented," the government has a "heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution."

The parties and the justices also attempted to identify limits to the Commerce Clause using examples and drawing comparisons, including comparing the requirement to purchase health insurance to burial services, broccoli, cell phones, cars and wheat. But the focus appeared to be on what might be the unique aspects of the health insurance industry, largely that the decision not to buy insurance, coupled with the conclusion that all individuals will at some point in their lives need healthcare services and require uncompensated care, drives up the cost of insurance for those individuals who do buy insurance.

The parties and justices also discussed what alternatives Congress has to the individual mandate. These included mandating the purchase of insurance at the time an individual seeks uncompensated care; using tax power to raise revenue for a national health service, similar to the approach used under Medicare; a tax credit for the purchase of insurance; and creating a government subsidy to cover the costs necessary to pay for the guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewability and other insurance market reform provisions.

The oral argument on the individual mandate does provide some insight into the current thinking of the justices on this critical question in the case, but there is absolutely no way of knowing the outcome based upon the questions and statements appearing in oral argument alone. Perhaps Justice Kennedy demonstrates this best in one of the closing statements, which swings in the opposite direction from his initial question at the opening of oral argument. Justice Kennedy agreed that Congress, in issuing the individual mandate, leverages the uninsured in order to regulate the insured and stated, "the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique .... But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world ... the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case."

The question of whether the uninsured are "uniquely proximately very close" to affecting the rates of health insurance and the costs of providing medical care could become a focal point of the final decision. The fact that this came from what is considered by experts to be the deciding vote in this case makes it particularly insightful.

Day 3, Part 1: Severability

The final day of oral arguments started with the issue of, assuming the individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether the rest or some portion of the Act could, or must, be struck down.

Many times a law contains a "severability clause" that states that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law. The Act did not contain a severability clause. The federal government argues that assuming the mandate is found unconstitutional, only two provisions of the law are tied to the individual mandate and should not stand: the law's requirement to cover people with pre-existing conditions and the requirement that insurance companies use community rating, as opposed to experience rating (through which premiums are based on health history).

The states argued that if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then the entire law should be struck down because the individual mandate is essential to the core provisions of the Act, including the operation of the state health insurance exchanges. Moreover, the states argued that Congress would not have passed the Act without the individual mandate, and Congress intentionally refrained from including a severability clause. Justice Scalia seemed to agree, stating, "my approach would be to say if you take the heart out of the act the act is gone." However, Justice Sotomayor challenged this notion, pointing to other states that have implemented guaranteed issue and community rating provisions without a mandate. A Court-appointed amicus curiae argued that the entire Act, except for the mandate, should be kept intact.

Justice Sotomayor suggested that if the mandate was found unconstitutional, it would be the role of Congress to determine what other parts of the law should remain: "What's wrong with leaving it ... in the hands of the people [Congress] who should be fixing this, not us." Justice Scalia says it was "unrealistic" to leave such a task to Congress, suggesting that it would make better sense to allow Congress to start from scratch. "What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages," he asked. "Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?" Justice Breyer questioned whether both parties could sit down and determine a list of provisions they agreed could stand, and then hold more hearings with the justices. Neither party seemed amenable to this idea.

Day 3, Part 2: Medicaid Expansion

The final issue addressed in oral arguments related to proposed expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid is a voluntary program jointly funded by the state and the federal governments. Federal Medicaid funding is an important source of state revenues and is conditioned on the states' providing care to certain demographic groups, such as children, the elderly and pregnant women. The Act will expand Medicaid coverage to all persons under 133 percent of the poverty line in 2014, many of whom will be more likely to apply for Medicaid if they come under the requirements of the individual mandate. The states must either accept the expansion or forgo all Medicaid money from the federal government. Interestingly, while states currently pay approximately half of all Medicaid costs, the federal government will initially pay for 100 percent of the expansion, dropping to 90 percent by 2020.

If the Medicaid expansion is upheld, the potential effects on healthcare providers include a great expansion of the coverage pool and potential loss of entire state-level markets if states opt to use their "nuclear option" in forgoing the federal funds and refusing to provide Medicaid services — an option that is seen as so unpalatable by the states that they claim it amounts to coercion.

Generally, Congress may place any condition it wants on expenditure of funds under its spending power unless that condition amounts to coercion. While the Supreme Court has in previous decisions expressed that such a limit may exist, it has never found any condition placed on any federal money granted to the states to be coercion, and here the states failed to convince the lower courts that the Medicaid expansion amounted to coercion. This precedent, combined with the voluntary nature of the Medicaid program and the federal government's commitment to foot most of the bill for the expansion, has led many commentators to note that this issue is the weakest part of the states' challenges to the law.

The justices appear to be split on this issue as well. For instance, Justice Kagan noted: "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" However, Justice Alito noted that Congress' apparent assumption that no state could ever afford to reject Medicaid funding should be taken as obvious coercion. Interestingly, Justice Alito also commented that the federal government's threat to withhold Medicaid funds may not be credible, as the goal of the Act is to provide near-universal healthcare coverage: "... it's a realistic possibility the Secretary is going to say, well, okay, fine, you know. We are going to cut off your new funds but we are not going to cut off your old funds and just let that condition sit there."

Conclusion

Many consider the arguments relating to the Act to be some of the most important that have ever been presented to the Supreme Court. The requirements of the Act have dramatically shifted the healthcare industry. Now that the arguments are complete, the viability of the Act is in the hands of the Supreme Court — but healthcare providers cannot afford to lie idle pending a decision. Instead, organizations should continue to identify ways to best position themselves in what will continue to be a dynamic and ever-changing landscape, regardless of the Court's decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Vincent A. Dongarra
 
In association with
Related Video
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
Accounting and Audit
Anti-trust/Competition Law
Consumer Protection
Corporate/Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Employment and HR
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment
Family and Matrimonial
Finance and Banking
Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Government, Public Sector
Immigration
Insolvency/Bankruptcy, Re-structuring
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International Law
Law Practice Management
Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Privacy
Real Estate and Construction
Strategy
Tax
Transport
Wealth Management
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.