The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) sets in motion a wide range of programs that substantially affected the health system in the United States and signify a moderate but important regulatory shift in the role of the federal government in public health. This article briefly addresses two interesting policy paradoxes about the ACA. First, while the legislation primarily addresses health care financing and insurance and establishes only a few initiatives directly targeting public health, (...) the ACA nevertheless has the potential to produce extensive public health benefits across the United States population by improving access to health care and services and reducing cost. Essentially, the ACA does not take the explicit form of a public health law but instead strives to advance public health indirectly through its effects. Second, while the ACA does not establish a right to health — or even a right to health insurance — in the United States, it does set in motion a number of significant structural and normative changes to United States law that comport with the attainment of the right to health. Most significantly, key provisions of the bill are designed to improve availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of conditions necessary for health, and to prompt the government to respect, protect, and fulfill these conditions. These developments mean that, to a degree, the United States essentially has undertaken the same types of legal and policy steps that a country would be required to take to uphold the right to health without actually recognizing the right to health in any formal or legally binding way.Despite these dual paradoxes and the upside potential for public health improvements resulting from the ACA, the public health impact of the law remains uncertain and will be decided by numerous subsequent regulatory and implementation decisions. The ACA authorizes multiple federal agencies to engage in rulemaking, a process that will largely dictate the systemic and health impacts that will become its legacy. This reality opens up ample opportunity to bolster public health aspects and interpretations of the law, and to simultaneously augment the corresponding components of the right to health. (shrink)

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010 represents a significant turning point in the evolution of health care law and policy in the United States. By establishing a legal infrastructure that seeks to achieve universal health insurance coverage in the United States, the ACA targets some of the major impediments to accessing needed health care for millions of Americans and by extension attempts to strengthen the health system to (...) support key determinants of health. Yet, like many newly passed legislative provisions, the ultimate effects and significance of the ACA remain uncertain. Those charged with implementing the ACA face formidable obstacles — indeed, some of the same obstacles that have been erected to impede other major pieces of social legislation in the past — including entrenched political opposition, constitutional challenges, and what will likely be a prolonged struggle over the content and direction of how the law is implemented. As these debates continue, it is nevertheless important to begin to assess the impact that the ACA has already had on health law in the United States and to consider the likely effects that the law will have on public health going forward. (shrink)

The recent confirmation of the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) by the US Supreme Court has brought to the fore long-standing debates over individual liberty and religious freedom. Advocates of personal liberty are often critical, particularly in the USA, of public health measures which they deem to be overly restrictive of personal choice. In addition to the alleged restrictions of individual freedom of choice when it comes to the question (...) of whether or not to purchase health insurance, opponents to the PPACA also argue that certain requirements of the Act violate the right to freedom of conscience by mandating support for services deemed immoral by religious groups. These issues continue the long running debate surrounding the demands of religious groups for special consideration in the realm of health care provision. In this paper I examine the requirements of the PPACA, and the impacts that religious, and other ideological, exemptions can have on public health, and argue that the exemptions provided for by the PPACA do not in fact impose unreasonable restrictions on religious freedom, but rather concede too much and in so doing endanger public health and some important individual liberties. (shrink)

Controversy exists over how to ethically distribute health care resources and which factors should determine access to health care services. Although the US has traditionally used a market-based private insurance model that does not ensure universal coverage, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the United States aims to increase equitable access to health care by increasing the accessibility, affordability, and quality of health care services. This article evaluates the impact of (...) the ACA on equitable mental health care delivery according to access factors that can hinder or facilitate the delivery of mental health services based on need. The ACA has successfully expanded coverage to millions of Americans and promoted coordination and access to mental health care; however, financial and non-financial access barriers to mental health care and access disparities remain. Reform efforts should not undervalue the gains that the ACA has made but should attempt to balance considerations of cost and increasing free-market mechanisms with decreasing remaining health care disparities. (shrink)

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Although there is much in the ACA that is endorsed by the Catholic health ministry, the many positive provisions of the ACA have been overshadowed for the Catholic Church and the Catholic healthcare community by the controversial provisions requiring access to all FDA-approved sterilization and contraceptive medications (75 Fed. Reg. 137 (19 July 2010)) Typically, these drugs and services have not (...) been covered by the health plans of many religious employers including Catholic hospitals, universities, and social service agencies. Acknowledging the existence of religious-based objections to the provisions of these .. (shrink)

The most prominent — and certainly the most controversial — feature of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the so-called “individual mandate,” which attempts to address the problem of 50 million uninsured by requiring nearly all Americans, beginning in 2014, to obtain health insurance. While expanded access to health insurance has been both the cornerstone and the lightening rod of the ACA, the Act also contains significant public health provisions focusing on, among other things, (...) promoting the availability of prevention and wellness services. Although these public health provisions have been greeted with mixed reviews, there has been very little discussion of what may be the ACA’s most significant public health feature: the preventive services mandate. In a bold stroke, the ACA changes the way evidence-based preventive services will be provided and paid for by private health insurance plans, Medicare, and Medicaid. By requiring these health plans to provide evidence-based preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, the ACA transforms the U.S.’s public and private health care financing systems into vehicles for promoting public health. (shrink)

The new millennium is still very young, so it is too early to declare National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius1 the health law “case of the century,” but that title would not be hyperbolic. Never before have we seen a case of such monumental importance for how health care is financed and delivered in the United States. At the Supreme Court, no decision has been more closely watched and more anxiously awaited since Bush v. Gore in 2000. In (...) the balance was the fate of President Obama's signature piece of domestic legislation, one that affects nearly every aspect of the largest segment of our economy, and so is perhaps the most important piece of social legislation since the New Deal. To no one's surprise, the decision was announced at the very end of the Court's term and was split five to four.What was very surprising, however, was the Court's embrace of the tax power defense of the individual mandate. And what was outright shocking was a seven‐to‐two majority in favor of finding the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional unless states are allowed to opt out of the expansion.The case holds great significance not only for the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—and, thus, for the nation's health care public policy—but also for constitutional doctrine that applies much more broadly than in the health care arena. (shrink)

The U.S. 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exempts members of health care sharing ministries from the individual mandate to have minimum essential insurance coverage. Little is generally known about these religious organizations and even less critical attention has been brought to bear on them and their ACA exemption. Both deserve close scrutiny due to the exemption’s less than clear legislative justification, their potential influence on the ACA’s policy and ethical success, and their salience (...) to current religious liberty debates surrounding the expansion of religious exemptions from ACA responsibilities for both individuals and corporations. Analyzing documents of the United States’ three largest health care sharing ministries and related material, I examine these organizations and their ACA exemption with particular consideration of their ethical dimensions. Here a thick description of the nature and workings of health care sharing ministries precedes a similar account of the ACA exemption. From these empirical analyses, five ethical and policy concerns emerge: the charity versus insurance status of these ministries; the conflation of two ACA religious exemptions; the tension between the values of religious liberty and of justice; the potential undermining of ACA policy goals; and the questionable compliance of health care sharing ministries with ACA exemption requirements. An accurate and informed understanding of HCSMs is required for policymakers and others to justify the ACA exemption of health care sharing ministry members. A sufficient justification would address at least the five ethical and policy concerns raised here. (shrink)

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Among other things, it found that states may refuse to expand Medicaid to all individuals earning less than 133% of the federal poverty line. In this article, I evaluate the strongest conservative objection to the Medicaid expansion, which runs as follows: "Defenders of the ACA promised that the Medicaid expansion (and all other parts of the ACA) would be (...) paid for with compensating cuts. However, it’s arguable that that claim is false and that the government is likely to follow its well-worn pattern of charging at least some of the increased spending to the national debt. Debt is already at dangerous levels, and adding to it increases the risk of a serious fiscal crisis. We should therefore oppose the Medicaid expansion." After laying out this argument, I evaluate its central claims and draw three main conclusions. First, some people could reasonably believe the assumptions behind the fiscal objection, and thus reasonably oppose the Medicaid expansion as well. Second, despite the fact that reasonable critics could hold those assumptions, most critics do not, and so they should not reject the Medicaid expansion on these fiscal grounds. Third, supporters of the ACA and the Medicaid expansion can reasonably reject the assumptions behind the fiscal objection, and thus the objection itself. (shrink)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be the most important health law statute in American history, yet much of the most prominent legal scholarship examining it has focused on the merits of the court challenges it has faced rather than delving into the details of its priority-setting provisions. In addition to providing an overview of the ACA’s provisions concerning priority setting and their developing interpretations, this Article attempts to defend three substantive propositions. First, I argue that the ACA (...) is neither uniformly hostile nor uniformly friendly to efforts to set priorities in ways that promote cost and quality. Second, I argue that the ACA does not take a single, unified approach to priority setting; rather, its guidance varies depending on the aspect of the health care system at issue (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Medicare, essential health benefits) and the factors being excluded from priority setting (age, disability, life expectancy). Third, I argue that cost-effectiveness can be achieved within the ACA's constraints, but that doing so will require adopting new approaches to cost-effectiveness and priority setting. By limiting the use of standard cost-effectiveness analysis, the ACA makes the need for workable rivals to cost-effectiveness analysis a pressing practical concern rather than a mere theoretical worry. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) contains many provisions intended to increase access to and lower the cost of health care by adopting public health measures. One of these promotes the use of at-work wellness programs by both providing employers with grants to develop these programs and also increasing their ability to tie the price employees pay for health insurance for participating in these programs and meeting specific health goals. Yet despite (...) ACA's specific alteration of three different statues which had in the past shielded employees from having to contribute to the cost of their health insurance based on their achieving employer-designated health markers, it chose to leave alone recently enacted rules implementing the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), which prohibits employers from asking employees about their family health history in any context, including assessing their risk for setting wellness targets. This article reviews how both the changes made by ACA and the restrictions recently put place by GINA will affect the way employers are likely to structure Wellness Programs. It also considers how these changes reflect the competing social goals of both ACA, which seeks to expand access to the population by lowering costs, and GINA, which seeks to protect individuals from discrimination. It does so by analyzing both positive theories about how these new laws will function and normative theories explaining the likelihood of future friction between the interests of the population of the United States as a whole who are in need of increased and affordable access to health care, and of the individuals living in this country who risk discrimination, as science and medicine continue to make advances in linking genetic make-up to risk of future illness. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the law of the land. But it faces an uncertain future.During congressional deliberations on the 2,700-page legislation leading up to its enactment, from February to March 2010, not one major survey recorded majority support for the legislation. Since its enactment, popular opposition to the Affordable Care Act has hardened, and was a significant factor in the 2010 congressional election, in which Democrats lost 63 seats (...) and Republicans regained the majority in the House of Representatives. Ballot initiatives in Missouri and Ohio, showcasing popular opposition to the individual mandate, passed in 2010 with overwhelming majorities. While the United States Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, declared the mandate on the states to expand Medicaid unconstitutionally coercive, the majority of the Justices also upheld the individual mandate as a permissible tax. The new law thus emerged as a central topic in the 2012 election. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. ACA aims to improve access to care and health outcomes through a number of mechanisms, including requiring most individuals to carry health insurance, prohibiting insurers from denying health insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and creating exchanges through which individuals and families not eligible for employer- or government-sponsored health insurance may purchase coverage. While the Act is aimed primarily at (...) improving individual health by increasing access to health insurance, it also contains a number of provisions targeted directly at improving health at the population level. Most of these provisions, which encompass a variety of disease prevention and access-to-care initiatives, are found in ACA Title IV. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. ACA aims to improve access to care and health outcomes through a number of mechanisms, including requiring most individuals to carry health insurance, prohibiting insurers from denying health insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and creating exchanges through which individuals and families not eligible for employer- or government-sponsored health insurance may purchase coverage. While the Act is aimed primarily at (...) improving individual health by increasing access to health insurance, it also contains a number of provisions targeted directly at improving health at the population level. Most of these provisions, which encompass a variety of disease prevention and access-to-care initiatives, are found in ACA Title IV. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant reform of the United States health care system in decades. ACA also substantially amplifies the federal role in health care regulation. Among other provisions, ACA expands government health care programs, imposes detailed federal standards for commercial health insurance policies, creates national requirements on employers and individuals, and enlists state administrative capacity to implement various federal reforms. In response, a persistent voice in the (...) protracted, contentious debate surrounding ACA was, and continues to be, resistance from states. The rhetoric of federalism — states’ rights, reserved powers, state sovereignty, limited government, and local diversity — resonates deeply even around provisions of ACA that do not specifically implicate state interests. For example, the loudest and most persistent state objections target the new mandate that individuals maintain health insurance, a requirement imposed by ACA and enforced through federal tax penalties. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant reform of the United States health care system in decades. ACA also substantially amplifies the federal role in health care regulation. Among other provisions, ACA expands government health care programs, imposes detailed federal standards for commercial health insurance policies, creates national requirements on employers and individuals, and enlists state administrative capacity to implement various federal reforms. In response, a persistent voice in the (...) protracted, contentious debate surrounding ACA was, and continues to be, resistance from states. The rhetoric of federalism — states’ rights, reserved powers, state sovereignty, limited government, and local diversity — resonates deeply even around provisions of ACA that do not specifically implicate state interests. For example, the loudest and most persistent state objections target the new mandate that individuals maintain health insurance, a requirement imposed by ACA and enforced through federal tax penalties. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act turns to a nontraditional mechanism to improve public health: employer -provided financial incentives for healthy behaviors. Critics raise questions about incentive programs' effectiveness, employer involvement, and potential discrimination. We support incentive program development despite these concerns. The ACA sets the stage for a broad-based research and implementation agenda through which we can learn to structure incentive programs to not only promote public health but also address prevalent concerns.

Recent developments in the health care industry have precipitated a new wave of interest in expanding the scope of practice for nursing. This is because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, broadly designed to increase access to health insurance, will inevitably result in increased demand for primary care providers. And with compensation for primary care physicians already lagging far behind that of specialists, the role of nurse practitioners is once again receiving increased (...) attention as a viable means by which to ease the pressure for access to health care.But the economics of this trade-off are controversial. On one hand, it sets primary care physicians at odds with specialists; namely, if the ultimate goal is to “bend the cost curve downward,” should specialist compensation be reduced in order to increase spending on primary care? (shrink)

The next steps in health reform, like all such efforts before it, will have to engage the issue of American health care federalism – the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health law and policy. Since its enactment in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has offered a robust example of modern federalism and revealed new complexities. This article recounts the findings of our five-year study of the federalist (...) and nationalist features of ACA implementation. Contrary to the claims of ACA opponents that the law marked a federal “takeover,” the ACA's governance structures have advanced rather than suppressed state power. But we also found that the advances in state power occurred seemingly independently of the statute's structural arrangements; that is, the ACA's nationalist and federalist features both enhanced state power over health policy. These findings raise questions about whether cherished American federalism values are unique to federalist structures; they also raise the question of what exactly health care federalism is for, and why we continue to design health policy with federalism front and center. It is not clear that enhanced state power has brought better health policy. If it has not, is federalism for its own sake worth the trade-off? (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 purportedly assures almost all Americans of the right to health insurance coverage. The long-term success of this legislation in improving the public’s health in the United States will likely hinge in no small part on the degree to which statutorily establishing a right to health insurance coverage translates into actual timely, meaningful access to health services, particularly physician services, for specific individuals.

Many observers have argued that the US health care system could be more efficient, and achieve better outcomes if providers focused more on improving the community's health, not just the welfare of individual patients. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 seemed to herald the promise of such reforms, and greater integration of the health care and public systems. In this article, we reassess the quest for integration, a quest we call the “integration project.” (...) After examining the modest steps taken so far toward integration, we consider some conceptual barriers to integration as well as some of the risks it might portend for the public health system. Our assessment contributes to wide-ranging debates among public health advocates, practitioners, and policymakers as to the health care system's role in protecting public health, and how the public health system can best be organized to meet expected population health challenges. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe health‐care reform promised by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 2010 continues our dependence on a central feature of the American health‐care system: employer‐sponsored insurance . In this article I will criticize the assumptions regarding market and welfare concerns on which this dependence is based and argue that efforts to mandate ESI ignore both the dynamics of the employment relation and the nature of health‐care needs. A comparison between investing (...) in employee education and investing in employee health will reveal the pragmatic challenges to ESI and the covert appeal to employer beneficence on which ESI rests. This paper argues that relying on ESI to guarantee appropriate care for a significant segment of the population is undesirable and unsustainable from both market and moral perspectives. (shrink)

Against a backdrop of non-ideal political and legal conditions, this article examines the health capability paradigm and how its principles can help determine what aspects of health care might legitimately constitute positive health care rights—and if indeed human rights are even the best approach to equitable health care provision. This article addresses the long American preoccupation with negative rights rather than positive rights in health care. Positive health care rights are an exception to the overall (...) moral range and general thrust of U.S. legal doctrine. Some positive rights to health care have arisen from U.S. Constitutional Eighth Amendment cases and federal and state laws like Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Finally, this article discusses some of the difficulties inherent in implementing a positive right to health care in the U.S. (shrink)

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010, significantly changes the health care landscape. But even with the considerable expansion of insurance, many people will still lack coverage. When fully implemented, the act is designed only to cover about thirty-two million of the forty-six million uninsured Americans. Illegal aliens are specifically excluded. For others, implementation is not immediate; the so-called individual mandate, for example, does not take effect until 2014, (...) and there are exceptions for people for whom available policies are still too expensive, or who have religious objections. Once in effect, the mandate has limited penalties, and some people will choose .. (shrink)

In 2013, in accordance with a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the U.S. government began fining hospitals with “excessive” patient readmission rates. Those working to respond to this issue have identified discharge communication with patients as a critical component. In response to this exigency and to contribute to the conversation in the medical humanities about the field’s purview and orientation, this article analyzes studies of and texts about communication in health and (...) medicine, ultimately arguing that the on-going circulation of compliance rhetoric and assumptions has limited efforts to improve patient communication. The article, furthermore, considers that humanist ideals of agentic action, the patient-centered care movement’s emphasis on the patient, and biomedicine’s tendency to treat evidence-based knowledge as fixed and given may have combined to support a rationale for using patient adherence to treatment guidelines as metrics in measurement studies designed to identify effective communication strategies. Finally, the article proposes that those working in the medical humanities consider the value of interdisciplinary posthumanist scholarship—specifically, its treatment of agency and knowledge as emergent, distributed, and contingent—and its potential to transform or extend in productive ways the conversation about what constitutes effective communication with patients. (shrink)

The passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a triumph for the field of public health. Its inclusion of many provisions intended to prevent illness and promote health endorses the core belief of public health as expressed by Dr. Georges Benjamin, the long-time executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a Washington Post opinion piece praising ACA for “provid[ing] care as far upstream as possible… [in order to] reduce costs by (...) identifying problems early and then managing them to reduce or eliminate the need for more costly care in the future.” In this article, I consider the conflict between ACA’s adoption of public health goals seeing population health and societal interests in protecting individuals from discrimination based on their health. The article focuses on one aspect of ACA which seeks to lower the costs to employers who provide health insurance for their employees by making it easier for them to offer their employees substantial incentives for participating in and meeting the goals of employer-sponsored Wellness Programs. (shrink)

Heath care and public health are typically conceptualized as separate, albeit overlapping, systems. Health care’s goal is the improvement of individual patient outcomes through the provision of medical services. In contrast, public health is devoted to improving health outcomes in the population as a whole through health promotion and disease prevention. Health care services receive the bulk of funding and political support, while public health is chronically starved of resources. In order to reduce morbidity and mortality, (...) policymakers must shift their attention to public health services and to the improved integration of health care and public health. In other words, health care and public health should be treated as two parts of a single integrated health system. Furthermore, in order to maximize improvements in health status, policymakers must consider the impact of all governmental policies on health. (shrink)

The intensity of the opposition to health reform in the United States continues to shock and perplex proponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The emotion and the apocalyptic rhetoric, render civil and evidence-based debate over the implications and alternatives to specific provisions in the law difficult if not problematic. The public debate has largely barreled down two non-parallel yet non-intersecting paths: opponents focus on their fear of government expansion in the future if PPACA (...) is implemented now, while proponents focus on the urgency and specifics of our health care market problems and the limited number of tools we have to address them. Frustration on both sides has led opponents to deny the seriousness of our health system’s problems and proponents to ignore the risk of governmental overreach. These non-intersecting lines of argument are not moving us closer to a desired and necessary resolution. (shrink)

Among multiple legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is the premise that PPACA's “individual mandate” (requiring all individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face civil penalties) is inviolate of Congress' interstate commerce powers because Congress lacks the power to regulate commercial “inactivity.” Several courts initially considering this argument have rejected it, but federal district courts in Virginia and Florida have concurred, leading to numerous appeals and prospective review of the (...) United States Supreme Court. Despite creative arguments, the dispositive constitutional question is not whether Congress' interstate commerce power extends to commercial inactivity. Rather, it is whether Congress may regulate individual decisions with significant economic ramifications in the interests of protecting and promoting the public's health. This article offers a counter-interpretation of the scope of Congress' interstate commerce power to regulate in furtherance of the public's health. (shrink)

Despite historic efforts to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, national health reform is threatened by multiple legal challenges grounded in constitutional law. Premier among these claims is the premise that PPACA’s “individual mandate” is constitutionally infirm. Attorneys General in Virginia and Florida allege that Congress’ interstate commerce powers do not authorize federal imposition of the individual mandate because Congress lacks the power to regulate commercial “inactivity.” Stated simply, Congress cannot regulate individuals (...) who choose not to obtain health insurance because they are not engaged in a commercial venture. Several courts initially considering this argument have rejected it, but two federal district courts in Virginia and Florida have concurred, leading to numerous appeals and the near promise of United States Supreme Court review. (shrink)

In the debates surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, little attention has been paid to definitions of important terms like "health care," "disease," and "disorder." When health care is discussed, one assumes universal definitions of terms and a common understanding of their meanings. But delving deeper into the subject, one finds that a common understanding is lacking. Specifically, the liberal tradition, from which the health care act was derived, defines important health (...) care terms in ways that most people would not. This paper applies Alasdair MacIntyre's discussion of tradition-based rational enquiry to show that proper definitions of "health care," "disease," and "disorder" should be based on the normal functioning of the organs and organ systems of the human body. (shrink)

This “Legal Briefing” column covers recent legal developments involving patient decision aids. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. It is included in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And it has received significant attention in the biomedical literature, including a new book, a thematic issue of Health Affairs, and a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine. Moreover, physicians and health systems across the United States are (...) increasingly integrating decision aids into their clinical practice. Both federal and state laws play a significant role in promoting this expanded use. On the other hand, concerns about liability could stymie development and implementation. We categorize legal developments concerning patient decision aids into the following five sections:1. Development of decision aids2. Effectiveness of decision aids3. Federal regulation of decision aids4. State regulation of decision aids5. Legal concerns regarding decision aids. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, is considered by many to be the most significant healthcare overhaul since the 1960s, but part of its promise — improvement of population health through requirements for non-profit hospitals to provide “community benefit” — has not been met. This paper examines the history of community benefit legislation, how community benefit dollars are allocated, and innovative practices by a few hospitals and communities that are addressing primarily non-medical (...) factors that influence health such as social disadvantage, attitudes, beliefs, risk exposure, and social inequalities. (shrink)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act created the nation's first comprehensive comparative effectiveness research (CER) program. According to some optimistic accounts, CER will revolutionize clinical practice and transform the health care delivery system. But what about public health? There are reasons for concern that it could end up left behind in the new era of comparative effectiveness. This article analyzes the considerable promise and serious limitations of applying CER to public health. It also highlights (...) important issues that will likely emerge for public health law and policy as the health care system transitions to greater reliance on CER. (shrink)

Patient decision aids enable patients to be better informed about the potential benefits and harms of their healthcare options. Certification of patient decision aids at the national level in the United States is a critical step towards responsible governance—primarily as a quality measure that increases patients’ safety, as mandated in the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Certification would provide a verification process to identify conflicts of interest that may otherwise bias the (...) scientific evidence presented in decision aids. Certification also benefits clinicians who may otherwise face malpractice claims based on harm to patients caused by possible reliance on patient decision aids that are inaccurate, incomplete, or presented in a manner that biases the patient’s decision. Existing work by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration could guide the establishment of a certification process within the U.S. This article argues for national certification of patient decision aids and discusses how that may be achieved. (shrink)

According to Congressional Budget Office projections, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — assuming it survives the pending legal challenges and is fully implemented — will provide health insurance to 34 million additional Americans by 2021. This will increase the percentage of non-elderly Americans with health insurance from the current rate of 83 percent to 95 percent. Although enactment of the Affordable Care Act constitutes a historic step forward in the nearly century-long effort (...) to ensure universal health insurance coverage, relatively little in the Act focused on the potentially transformative impact of public health efforts that prevent disease. Chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are now responsible for more than 75 percent of health care costs, and reducing the incidence of these diseases — which are often entirely preventable — could dramatically improve the nation’s physical and fiscal health. (shrink)

Evidence suggests that the nurse’s role as an advocate for patients and for the professional right to conscience is being eroded because of a lack of conscience protections in the Patient Affordable Care Act and because of a faulty understanding in general of the separation of church and state. While the main task of the principle of separation of church and state is to secure religious liberty, the principle is increasingly interpreted in a secularist way to mean (...) that religion must be confined to the home and church and that people of conscience may not object to immoral practices in the workplace or public square. If nurses must risk their jobs to advocate for their patients, patient care will suffer. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14.1 : 47–52. (shrink)

Public disclosure of industry payments to physicians is one way to address financial conflicts of interest in medicine. As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires pharmaceutical, medical device, and biologics manufacturers who have at least one product reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid to disclose payments to physicians and teaching hospitals on a public website starting in 2014. The physician payment data will contain individual physician names, monetary values, (...) and specific products connected to payments.According to the Final Regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in February 2013, the law will make transparent the extent and nature of relationships between physicians, teaching hospitals, and manufacturers. (shrink)

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is one of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's significant initiatives that aims to improve treatment outcomes and lower health care costs. This article takes CER a step further and suggests a novel clinical application for it. The article proposes the development of a national framework to enable physicians to rapidly perform, through a computerized service, medically sound personalized comparisons of the effectiveness of possible treatments for patients' conditions. A treatment (...) comparison for a given patient would be based on data from electronic health records of a cohort of clinically similar patients who received the treatments previously and whose outcomes were recorded. This framework has unique potential to simultaneously improve the quality of health care, reduce its cost, and alleviate public concerns about rationing and “one size fits all” medicine. (shrink)

Accountable Care Organizations are a key mechanism of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ACOs will influence incentives for providers, who must understand these changes to make well-considered treatment decisions. Our paper defines an ethical framework for physician decisions and action within ACOs. Emerging ethical pressures providers will face as members of an ACO were classified under major headings representing three of the four principles of bioethics: autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Conflicts include a bias (...) against transient populations, a motive to undertreat conditions lacking performance measures, and the mandate to improve population health incentivizing life intrusions. After introducing and explaining each conflict, recommendations are offered for how providers ought to precede in the face of novel ethical choices. Our description of novel ethical choices will help providers know what to expect and our recommendations can guide providers in choosing well. (shrink)

Through an analysis of policy texts, population statistics and a targeted sample from the popular press, this paper both furthers knowledge about changing meanings of working motherhood in the contemporary US, and proposes a refinement to existing conceptual work relating to how wage-work and care-work are combined. I focus analysis on recent US social policy which grants new rights and protections for women seeking to combine lactation and wage-work (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (...) of 2011). I critique this policy through Bernise Hausman’s work on the politics of motherhood, arguing that it represents a form of work-life integration that is particularly burdensome for working mothers. I further argue that maternal practice as well as well as expectations of working motherhood in the contemporary US are being reshaped around the demands of neoliberalism, producing what I term ‘neoliberal motherhood’. I assert that this policy represents a way of combining wage-work and care-work that is not captured within existing feminist theory, and suggest that a re-working of theory in this area is needed in order to address cases in which embodied care-work is enfolded within the time and space of wage-work. (shrink)

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was designed to increase health insurance coverage in the United States. Its most controversial feature is the requirement that US residents purchase health insurance. Opponents of the mandate argue that requiring people to contribute to the collective good is inconsistent with respect for individual liberty. Rather than appeal to the collective good, this Viewpoint argues for a duty to buy health insurance based on the moral duty individuals have (...) to reduce certain burdens they pose on others. When some people have a duty to rescue, others may have a duty to take rescue precautions, in this case, to purchase health insurance to cover acute and emergency care needs. Requiring that individuals meet this obligation is consistent with respect of individual liberty. (shrink)

No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has been more contentious than the so-called “individual mandate,” the constitutionality of which is now before several appellate courts. Critics claim that the mandate represents an unprecedented attempt by the federal government to compel individual action. Yet, states frequently employ similar mandates to protect the public's health. These public health mandates have also often aroused deep opposition. This essay situates PPACA's mandate, and the opposition to (...) it, in that broader context. The article reviews the arguments that public health's population perspective provides in support of mandates, as well as the reasons why mandates often ignite intense legal and political opposition. Most importantly, by holding individuals accountable for population-based problems, mandates may undercut the public health arguments that justify them. The article concludes by arguing that public health policymakers need to know more about the unintended political and legal costs of mandates. (shrink)

No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has proven to be more contentious than the so-called “individual mandate.” Starting in 2014, the mandate will impose a penalty on non-exempt individuals who lack health insurance. According to Congress, the mandate is essential to ensuring near universal coverage. Without it, PPACA’s insurance reforms will lead healthy individuals to delay purchasing health insurance until they require medical care, resulting in risk pools with a disproportionate share (...) of high-risk people. The price of insurance will then climb, causing more and more not-so-sick people to forego health insurance. The resulting “death spiral” will make insurance unaffordable to many more Americans. (shrink)

Henri de Lubac's treatment of the relationship between nature and grace helped the Catholic Church to move beyond the antagonisms that had defined its relationship with the modern nation-state. In critiquing de Lubac, some recent scholarship has presented an interpretation of Aquinas that is remarkably similar to the problems associated with the neo-Scholastic method. These approaches indicate that in order for late modern democratic states to achieve their connatural ends of justice and the common good, they must directly advert to (...) revealed knowledge and Church teaching. This essay proposes an alternative correction to de Lubac that both maintains a distinction between nature and grace and facilitates a capacity for Christians to engage in a nuanced dialogue of affirmation and critique of the human goods sought by late modern political and legal institutions. In the conclusion, this nature-grace distinction is used to analyze the way the US Catholic Bishops have engaged in moral, political, and legal debates over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a major piece of health care reform legislation. This comprehensive legislation includes provisions that focus on prevention, wellness, and public health. Some, including authors in this symposium, question whether Congress considered public health, prevention, and wellness issues as mere afterthoughts in the creation of PPACA. As this article amply demonstrates, they did not.This article documents the extent of congressional consideration on public (...) health issues based on personal experience working on the framework for health care reform — specifically, my experience as a Fellow for a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee from 2008-2009. I also include a review of congressional activity in the United States House of Representatives. Analysis of the congressional meetings and hearings reveals that Congress had a deep understanding about the critical need to reform the U.S. public health and prevention system. (shrink)

Last year marks the first year of implementation for both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in the United States. As a result, healthcare reform is moving in the direction of integrating care for physical and mental illness, nudging clinicians to consider medical and psychiatric comorbidity as the expectation rather than the exception. Understanding the intersections of physical and mental illness with autonomy and self-determination in (...) a system realigning its values so fundamentally therefore becomes a top priority for clinicians. Yet Bioethics has missed opportunities to help guide clinicians through one of medicine's most ethically rich and challenging fields. Bioethics' distancing from mental illness is perhaps best explained by two overarching themes: 1) An intrinsic opposition between approaches to personhood rooted in Bioethics' early efforts to protect the competent individual from abuses in the research setting; and 2) Structural forces, such as deinstitutionalization, the Patient Rights Movement, and managed care. These two themes help explain Bioethics' relationship to mental health ethics and may also guide opportunities for rapprochement. The potential role for Bioethics may have the greatest implications for international human rights if bioethicists can re-energize an understanding of autonomy as not only free from abusive intrusions but also with rights to treatment and other fundamental necessities for restoring freedom of choice and self-determination. Bioethics thus has a great opportunity amid healthcare reform to strengthen the important role of the virtuous and humanistic care provider. (shrink)

The Trump Administration has exposed both the durability and vulnerability of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance reforms. One of the Administration's first strikes at “Obamacare” was to discontinue federal government payment of cost-sharing reductions, which insurers pay to low-income enrollees on the exchanges to reduce their out-of-pocket share of medical spending. The states struck back with a clever solution that could hold insurers and enrollees harmless. This article examines this strategy and why, while (...) impressive, it reaffirms larger problems with the ACA's market-based approach to health reform and the need for new pathways forward. (shrink)