Tag Archives: Unconstitutional

Trump Administration Files Formal Request to Strike Down All of Obamacare

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

The Trump administration formally declared its opposition to the entire Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, arguing in a federal appeals court filing that the signature Obama-era legislation was unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Such a decision could end health insurance for some 21 million Americans and affect many millions more who benefit from the law’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions and required coverage for pregnancy, prescription drugs and mental health.

In filing the brief, the administration abandoned an earlier position — that some portions of the law, including the provision allowing states to expand their Medicaid programs, should stand. The switch, which the administration disclosed in late March, has confounded many people in Washington, even within the Republican Party, who came to realize that health insurance and a commitment to protecting the A.C.A. were among the main issues that propelled Democrats to a majority in the House of Representatives last fall.

The filing was made in a case challenging the law brought by Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, and 17 other Republican-led states. In December, a federal judge from the Northern District of Texas, Reed O’Connor, ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

A group of 21 Democratic-led states, headed by California, immediately appealed, and the case is now before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The House of Representatives has joined the case as well to defend the law.

Democrats wasted no time responding to the filing Wednesday. Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, a Democrat, said: “The Trump administration chose to abandon ship in defending our national health care law and the hundreds of millions of Americans who depend on it for their medical care. Our legal coalition will vigorously defend the law and the Americans President Trump has abandoned.”

The government’s brief did not shed light on why it had altered its earlier position, referring only to “further consideration and review of the district court’s opinion.”

Oral arguments in the appeals court are expected in July, with a possible decision by the end of the year, as the 2020 presidential campaign gets going in earnest. Whichever side loses is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department’s request to expedite oral arguments, granted last month, suggests that the administration is eager for a final ruling. In its application, it said that “prompt resolution of this case will help reduce uncertainty in the health care sector, and other areas affected by the Affordable Care Act.”

Democrats, seizing on the health law’s popularity and its decisive role in their winning the House last fall, are already using the case as a cudgel against President Trump as his re-election campaign gets started. The law’s guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, in particular, remains very popular with voters in both parties as well as independents.

But Mr. Trump has appeared undaunted, tweeting in April that “Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions” and that a replacement plan “will be on full display during the Election as a much better & less expensive alternative to Obamacare.”

Instead of providing specifics, though, Mr. Trump, members of his administration and other Republicans have focused on attacking the Medicare for All plans that some Democratic presidential candidates have sponsored or endorsed as a dangerous far-left idea that would, as Mr. Trump tweeted, cause millions of Americans “to lose their beloved private health insurance.”

As the administration and Texas noted in their briefs, Judge O’Connor’s ruling turned on the law’s requirement that most people have health coverage or be subject to a tax penalty.

But in the 2017 tax legislation, Congress reduced that penalty to zero, effectively eliminating it. Judge O’Connor, the plaintiff states, and now the Trump administration reasoned that, like a house of cards, when the tax penalty fell, the so-called individual mandate became unconstitutional and unenforceable. Therefore, the entire law had to fall as well.

Mr. Paxton, the Texas attorney general, whose office also filed a brief on Wednesday, said: “Congress meant for the individual mandate to be the centerpiece of Obamacare. Without the constitutional justification for the centerpiece, the law must go down.”

Whether that position will survive judicial scrutiny is another question. Nicholas Bagley, who teaches health law at the University of Michigan Law School, noted that only two lawyers signed the brief. That is highly unusual in a case with such a high profile, he said.

“This is a testament to the outrageousness of the Justice Department position, that no reasonable argument could be made in the statute’s defense,” Mr. Bagley said. “It is a truly indefensible position. This is just partisan hardball.”

Many legal scholars have also said that even before appellate judges wade into the more obscure pools of legal reasoning, they could reach a decision by addressing the question of congressional intent. If Congress had meant the erasure of the tax penalty to wipe out the entire act, such an argument goes, it would have said so.

If the Fifth Circuit overturns the O’Connor decision, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would take an appeal. The court has ruled on two earlier A.C.A. challenges, finding in favor of the act, although narrowing it.

Of course, the composition of the Supreme Court has since changed.

 

 

 

Federal Appeals Court Puts Chill On Maryland Law To Fight Drug Price-Gouging

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/federal-appeals-court-puts-chill-on-maryland-law-to-fight-drug-price-gouging/

States continue to battle budget-busting prices of prescription drugs. But a federal court decision could limit the weapons available to them — underscoring the challenge states face as they, in the absence of federal action, go one-on-one against the powerful drug industry.

The 2-to-1 ruling Friday by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a Maryland law meant to limit “price-gouging” by makers of generic drugs. The measure was inspired by cases such as that of former Turing Pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli, who raised one generic’s price 5,000 percent after buying the company.

The law, which had been hailed as a model for other states, is one of a number of state initiatives designed to combat rapidly rising drug prices. It gave the state attorney general power to intervene if a generic or off-patent drug’s price increased by 50 percent or more in a single year.

If dissatisfied with the company’s justification, the attorney general could have filed suit in state court. Manufacturers would have faced a fine of up to $10,000 and potentially have to reverse the price hike. The generics industry was fiercely critical of the law.

“We are evaluating all options with regard to next steps,” said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh in a statement. His office would not elaborate further.

The state could appeal to have the case heard “en banc,” meaning by the full 4th Circuit, with jurisdiction over five states.

Such appeals aren’t commonly granted, but this law could be a strong candidate, suggested Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who researches drug-price regulation.

The Friday ruling looms large as other state legislatures grapple with ever-climbing drug prices.

Similar price-gouging legislation has been introduced in at least 13 states this year, though none of those measures became law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Three other bills failed to gain passage.

The NCSL also cited the law in a March advisory for states seeking new approaches to regulating drug prices.

The court’s finding could have a chilling effect on such efforts, especially as more state legislatures wrap up business for 2018.

“A negative court ruling will put a damper or a pause on state activities,” said Richard Cauchi, NCSL’s health program director. “Unless this topic is your No. 1 priority of the year, your legislators are juggling multiple bills, multiple strategies. When bill three gets in trouble, they move to bill four.”

The appeals court held that Maryland’s law overstepped limits on how states can regulate commerce — specifically, a constitutional ban on states controlling business that takes place outside their borders. The majority ruling argues that since most generics manufacturers and drug wholesalers engage in trade outside Maryland, the state cannot control what prices they charge.

In a dissenting opinion, the panel’s third judge argued Maryland can regulate the drug prices charged within the state since the law is meant to affect only medications being sold to its own residents.

Kesselheim, in an article published last month in the journal JAMA, argued a similar point.

Regardless, striking down a law on constitutional grounds can be particularly discouraging, suggested Rachel Sachs, an associate law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who researches drug regulations.

“If it had been a rejection on vagueness grounds, that’s something you can cure with a more specific statute,” she said. “But the fact that they said this is unconstitutional poses real concern for other states.”

That’s important. While the federal government has talked a big game on bringing down drug prices, it has done little. Instead, states have taken the lead — spurred by the budget squeeze pricey prescriptions impose on their Medicaid programs and on state employee benefits packages.

But states have far fewer tools at their disposal than does Congress. Most state laws so far tackle only pieces of the problem — targeting a specific drug or particular practice, experts said.

“We’ll get more broad and better evolution on this issue if the federal government decides to take it seriously — which it hasn’t so far,” Kesselheim said.

To be fair, Maryland’s law is only one of a bevy of approaches.

Other states have focused on price transparency laws. In California, drug companies must disclose in advance if a price might increase by more than a set percent and that they justify the increase. Industry has sued to block the California law.

New York has limited what the state will pay for drugs, establishing a process to review if expensive drugs are priced out of step with their medical value.

A number of states have since 2017 passed laws regulating pharmacy benefit managers — the contractors who negotiate discounted drug coverage for insurance plans, but who rarely reveal what level of discount they actually pass on to consumers.

Experts expect that activity to continue, especially as escalating drug prices show little sign of letting up.

“The states are going to keep trying and experimenting,” Sachs added. “This is a problem that isn’t going away.”

Even efforts such as Maryland’s — which targeted price-gouging — will likely remain at the forefront.

“I don’t think this is the end of states trying to do something on price-gouging,” said Ellen Albritton, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning advocacy group Families USA who consults with states on drug-pricing policy. “It’s such an issue that offends people’s sensibilities. It’s crazy people can do this.”