2019 - Going, going, gone . . .

It's been a while since I posted to this blog, but 2019 shouldn't come and go without some recognition of a few developments of note, not only for the year just ending but for 2020 (and beyond?).

First, on Dec. 18 (revised Dec. 20) the Fifth Circuit decided that the ACA's individual mandate was unconstitutional because, once Congress repealed the tax/penalty the mandate lost its constitutional footing. It's a mechanistic (which is to say either naive or political, and "naive" isn't a word lightly to be applied to these judges) performance. The court's reason tracks that of District Judge Reed O'Connor in his December 2018 opinion (which was roundly and soundly criticized): The Supreme Court's 2012 decision upholding the ACA for the most part (with the major exception of the Medicaid expansion provision) held that the Taxing Clause provided the necessary constitutional hook for the individual mandate. Take away the tax/penalty and you take away that hook, as Congress did in 2017 (Pub. L. No. 115-97, § 11081, 131 Stat. 2054, 2092 (2017); see also 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(c)), eff. January 2019. In the view of the Fifth Circuit majority, once there's no tax involved, the mandate is an act of pure coercion, to which the court takes objection. As Nick Bagley at Michigan has argued (see my next post), it's hard to see how taking away the tax/penalty makes the mandate more coercive than it was with the mandate (which the Supreme Court upheld in 2012).

Second, the Fifth Circuit's opinion (above) is notable for what it didn't do: It didn't affirm Judge O'Connor's conclusion that, because the individual mandate no longer has a constitutional basis, the entire ACA must be thrown out as well. Judge O'Connor's sweeping decision was based upon what he deemed to be the inseverability of the individual mandate from the rest of the ACA. Unfortunately, the appellate court didn't reverse Judge O'Connor on this point, even though this part of Judge O'Connor's opinion is worse than his analysis of the mandate question; rather, it merely remanded the case back to the judge for reconsideration. Katie Keith has a nice summary of the implications of this decision in Health Affairs.

Third, on the Medicaid expansion front, four more states came aboard in 2019 (more or less -- political and legal prospects are not crystal clear). This leaves 14 states that haven't adopted the expansion, leaving billions of federal dollars on the table that could be paying for low-income health care.

Fourth, litigation and growing uncertainty surround the formerly settled concept of "brain death." Thad Pope does a good job of following the developments over on the Medical Futility Blog.

Fifth, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on March 4, 2020, in two abortion cases. This is from SCOTUSBlog:

June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020] Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Gee v. June Medical Services, LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020] Issue(s): (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.