HealthLawProf Blog

Editor: Katharine Van Tassel
Akron Univ. School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

ACA Oral Argument Day 3, Pt. 2; Coercive Medicaid?

Transcript and audio files are now available, here. [NPT]

March 28, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ACA Oral Argument Day 3

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Clement, there are so many things in this Act that are unquestionably okay. I think you would concede that reauthorizing what is the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act changes to long benefits, why make Congress redo those? I mean it's a question of whether we say everything you do is no good, now start from scratch, or to say, yes, there are many things in here that have nothing to do frankly with the affordable healthcare and there are some that we think it’s better to let Congress to decide whether it wants them in or out. So why should we say it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything....

JUSTICE KAGAN: I mean, we have never suggested that we were going to say, look, this legislation was a brokered compromise and we are going to try to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the street and figure out whether they would have made a difference. Instead, we look at the text that's actually given us. For some people, we look only at the text. It should be easy for Justice Scalia's clerks.(Laughter.)...

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't care whether it's clerks. I care whether it's easy for me. (Laughter.)

Transcript and audio files are now available, here. [NPT]

March 28, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

ACA Oral Argument

As Nic points out, Justice Kennedy asked questions indicative of someone receptive to the arguments in favor of the individual mandate. So did Justice Roberts. While both of them also challenged the Solicitor General, there still is good reason to think that the mandate could be upheld by a 6-3 vote.

The justices want some limiting principles, but there are more than enough distinguishing features of the health care insurance market to assure them that upholding the mandate will not result in a broad, federal power to force people to buy things they don't want to buy.

For my commentary on yesterday's hearings and further discussion about the mandate, see this post on CNN.

[DO]

March 27, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ACA Oral Argument (3/27)

Justice Kennedy: That person who is sitting at home in his or her living room doing nothing is an actuarial reality that can and must be measured for health service purposes; is that their argument? … [T]hey are in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for.

Preliminary transcript and audio now avalilable, here. [NPT]

March 27, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, March 26, 2012

Guest Blogger Kathleen Boozang: A New Insurance Product: Responsible Corporate Officer Defense Insurance

Boozang-176x220_1Unsurprisingly, the market has responded to the new risks corporate officials in the life sciences industry face if their companies commit crimes that threaten the public’s health.  On February 7, 2012 insurance broker Marsh USA and insurer Allied Assurance Co. unveiled a new product, called RCO Corporate Response, “which provides insurance coverage for pharmaceutical, life sciences, and health care corporate officers who may be held liable for their companies’ actions under the Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) doctrine.” 

For those who are rusty, The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine allows for the conviction of a high-level corporate official (ambiguity of terminology suggests that directors could be liable as well) whose company has violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act irrespective of the official’s knowledge or involvement in the offense if the individual occupied a position that had a relationship with the unit that violated the statute, should have known about the activity, and had the authority to intervene. In short, the government need not produce evidence that the corporate official participated in or was aware of the illegal conduct. Potential penalties include fines, imprisonment, and debarment from the FDA.  As shall be discussed further, these penalties can lead to exclusion from Federal healthcare programs.

Continue reading

March 26, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Oral Argument Files

Transcript and audio files from the first day of Supreme Court arguments are available, here.

March 26, 2012 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)