Advertisement

June 19, 2013

The Individual Mandate – Third Argument is a Charm

In its landmark decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  As of now, beginning January 1, 2014, virtually all Americans will have to maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or will be assessed a penalty.

In its briefs, the government defended the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Power – their rationale being that everyone will need health care at some point in their lives, and those who lack insurance drive up costs for everyone else.  The Court didn’t buy this argument and found that Congress’ power to regulate commerce doesn’t extend to the power to regulate inactivity (e.g., the failure to maintain health insurance coverage).

Alternatively, the government argued the mandate was a proper under the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to enact laws to further its other Constitutional authority.  Again, the Court shot down the government’s argument saying this clause doesn’t grant independent powers to Congress – in other words, you can’t use the Necessary and Proper clause as a rationale for something for which you didn’t have authority to do.

Finally, the government argued the mandate was constitutional under Congress’ Taxing Power.  Under the ACA, taxpayers who fail to have health insurance coverage will be assessed a “penalty” assessed by the Internal Revenue Service.  Here, the Court agreed and upheld the mandate under Congress’ power to tax.  Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion basically said a tax – whether you call it a penalty or a surcharge – is still a tax.

Now that the mandate has been upheld, all eyes turn to the states – and the feds – as they work to implement the health insurance exchanges.  2014 is a mere 18 months away.

©2013 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Medicare Reimbursement and Health Policy Director

Anna Schwamlein Howard is the Medicare Reimbursement & Health Policy Director in the firm’s Health Government Relations team.

A nationally recognized authority on health care reform issues, Anna has considerable experience in government relations and regulatory affairs. Specifically, she has extensive knowledge with the Medicare Modernization Act, medical privacy and prescription drug issues, Medicare physician payment legislation, the Affordable Care Act, and other federal health issues impacting the lives of older Americans.

Prior to...

(202) 230-5681

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.