HealthLawProf Blog

Editor: Katharine Van Tassel
Concordia University School of Law

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Questioning Body Modification

[I've decided to put the whole post beneath the fold, since the topic reminds me of Leontius's Tale, and I don't want anyone to accidentally click through to something they don't want to see.]

Continue reading

May 18, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

USDA Creates the "Food Desert Locator" - Locations with Limited Access to Nutritious Food

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) has created the online Food Desert Locator which pinpoints the location of what the U.S. government calls "food deserts." Food deserts are areas where people have limited access to affordable and nutritious foods. The Food Desert Locator is on the Web at

The departments of Treasury, Health and Human Services and USDA define a "food desert" as a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store.

 According to Food Safety News:

"Low income" tracts are defined as those where at least 20 percent of the people have income at or below the federal poverty levels for family size, or where median family income for the tract is at or below 80 percent of the surrounding area's median family income.

Tracts qualify as "low access" tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles).

According to the USDA, about 10 percent of the 65,000 census tracts in the United States meet that definition.  Mostly in urban areas, these food desert tracts are home to 13.5 million people.The USDA, in a news release, said the tool can be used by policy makers, community planners and others to identify places where public-private intervention might help make fresh, healthy food more readily available, one of the goals of First Lady Michele Obama's Let's Move! initiative to address the epidemic of childhood obesity.


May 17, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

EPA Rules on Hazardous Emissions Delayed

Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a stay postponing the effective date of emissions standards for major source boilers and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators. Because the original boiler rule was vacated, there is no rule currently in place.  

On February 21, 2011, the EPA established Clean Air Act emissions standards for large and small boilers and incinerators that burn solid waste and sewage sludge. The standards cover more than 200,000 boilers and incinerators that emit air pollutants, including mercury, cadmium, dioxins and particle pollution.  The final rule, published on March 21, 2011, called for an effective date of May 20, 2011 with compliance deadlines beginning three years later.

An industry coalition    4 led by the American Forest & Paper Association and the National Association of Manufacturers fought the standards for dioxin and other dangerous emissions, claiming in a petition that they were not achievable, and that the companies forced to comply would suffer economic harm.  

An excellent report about the boiler rule, and the legal claims in the industry’s successful petition to stay the rule, was done by the Environmental Newswire, available here.

May 17, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Guest Blogger Vickie J. Williams: Physician Work Hours and Expanded Insurance Coverage

Williams_31 With all of the attention being paid to the various challenges to PPACA currently winding their way through the appellate courts, it is easy to forget that there is other interesting work being done that could impact health care reform.  The Government Accountability Office recently released a study entitled “The Effect of a Major Coverage Expansion on Physician Work Hours:  Evidence from the Children’s Health Insurance Program.”  The study found that there was a large negative relationship between the magnitude of a state’s CHIP expansion and trends in pediatricians’ work hours.  When more children became insured by an expanded public health insurance program, pediatricians who would presumably be treating this population actually worked fewer hours, despite an increase in demand for their services.  States that implemented a large CHIP expansion experienced a larger drop in pediatrician hours worked than states that implemented more modest CHIP expansions.   The authors of the study conclude that a possible explanation for this is that the reimbursement rates in the CHIP program are much lower than those of private insurers.  This supply-driven theory goes as follows:  CHIP expansions reduced average reimbursement rates for pediatricians. Physicians control the volume and type of services they provide (they don’t take all comers).  Physicians will continue to have the same fixed costs, such as durable equipment or office capacity (including the number of hours the office is open and the number of hours they work), regardless of the reimbursement rate they receive.  Therefore, physicians will realign their fixed-cost decisions to fit better with the types of patients they are seeing.  In this model, pediatricians would choose to work fewer hours as CHIP enrollment expands, because the reimbursement rates for seeing CHIP patients do not meet their supply-side needs.  These results are consistent with an older study from the New England Journal of Medicine which showed that when universal coverage for physician services was implemented in Quebec, Canada in 1970, average physician work hours fell by about 15 percent.

These results are intriguing for a number of reasons.  First of all, they have implications for how successful the PPACA will be (assuming it survives the current legal challenges) in increasing access to health care.  In addition to expanding the market for private insurance, PPACA relies on expanded enrollment in public insurance to reduce the number of uninsured.  To presume that increased access to public insurance, which will continue to pay rates below those paid by private insurers, will translate to increased access to health care, may be a mistake.  Unless health care providers are incentivized in some way (financial or otherwise) to treat these patients, increased demand will not necessarily increase supply.  As long as there are enough people with better-paying private insurance to keep health care providers busy, providers have no incentive to increase supply to meet the increased demand.  After all, for most people, if you make enough to live comfortably doing the amount of work you are currently accustomed to doing, any extra work you do has to really be worth it.  Children covered by public insurance programs, such as Medicaid and CHIP, are more likely to have medical problems that are complicated by less-than-ideal living or social conditions.  Yet rather than pay pediatricians more to deal with these children’s complex problems and make the extra work worth it, according to a 2009 study by Ingenix Consulting, we pay physicians who treat these children more than 40% less than the national average reimbursement rate for a physician office visit.  Clearly, expanded insurance coverage alone is not the answer to our nation’s health care problems.

Although the PPACA provides for an increase in Medicaid payments to primary care physicians to equal the somewhat higher Medicare payment rate for 2013 and 2014, I don’t think this is likely to be enough to incentivize physicians to take these complex Medicaid patients when private insurance pays far more for physicians to do what is often far less. In the absence of appropriate incentives to make publicly funded patients attractive to physicians, the other option would be to change the supply-side predicate that physicians do not take all comers—mandate that physicians who accept any federal money treat all comers. This is what became necessary to ensure that hospital emergency rooms did not refuse to treat patients, resulting in the wildly unpopular (amongst hospitals) unfunded mandate the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Another option would be for state licensing authorities to require physicians to treat a certain number of publicly funded patients as a condition of licensure.  Of course, if all states did not do this at the same time, this would result in a flood of physicians fleeing any state that implemented such a mandate.  

Physicians and other providers must make some hard decisions regarding whom they are willing to treat, and for how much, if they want to avoid having those decisions made for them.  I presume it would be more palatable to physicians if we reduce incentives to treat only privately insured patients by lowering payment rate differentials between privately and publicly insured patients, than to force physicians to treat all comers (or some percentage of comers).  If the GAO’s suggested supply-driven model of physician behavior holds true, and physicians truly want freedom from the tyranny of state or federal mandates, they should probably be embracing the changes in the private and public insurance market that would equalize coverage for all persons currently being debated in Congress and the courts.

- Vickie J. Williams

May 17, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, May 15, 2011

PPACA at the 4th Circuit

Dahlia Lithwick at has a nice review of the 4th Circuit oral argument last week.  My own take on the individual mandate and the activity-inactivity distinction will be appearing later this month at Southern California Law Review Postscript.


May 15, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)