Missouri Votes Against Individual Mandate, May Impact Standing Argument in Federal Court

Recently, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative which, according to the AMA’s amednews.com, “ask[ed] voters in part if they want to ‘deny the [federal] government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.’”

More than 71% of voters approved the initiative which seeks to negate the individual mandate, 29% voted against.

As recent events in California regarding Proposition 8 have shown, a referendum deemed unconstitutional  is without force of law.

In the AMA’s article, it is noted that

Few legal experts consider the state proposals more than symbolic, as federal law generally trumps state law. But lawsuits filed or joined by officials in 21 states challenging the federal government’s authority to require health insurance have the potential to overturn the federal law.

Generalities aside, as is best in this regard, it strikes me that the Missouri initiative may have more than just symbolic value. Importantly, in the recent federal court decision regarding Virginia’s suit against the individual mandate, the judge in that case found standing for the state of Virginia–an exceedingly important, though procedural, ruling. It is exceedingly important because without standing the case could simply not go forward. The judge in the case found standing for Virginia’s 10th Amendment claim largely based upon a law passed subsequent by the state of Virginia. Regarding that matter I wrote:

In deciding the standing issue, Judge Hudson, according to Professor Jack Balkin, made much of the “Virginia Health Care Freedom Act– which asserts that no Virgina citizen may be forced to purchase health care insurance; that this law conflicts with the federal Affordable Care Act, and therefore Virginia has standing to challenge the act under the 10th amendment.”

Virginia’s Act was passed subsequent to the federal law in question; other states challenging the individual mandate do not, at present, have such a law to rely on. As Professor Balkin points out, however, the Virginia Act being deemed sufficient to buttress standing in a States’ rights Tenth Amendment claim is interesting– to say the least. It begs the question.

In more than just symbolic terms, Missouri may have just answered that question–at least in terms of 10^th Amendment standing–if, of course, its federal district court sees the matter in the same way as did Judge Hudson. Certainly not guaranteed– the Missouri Federal Court is not bound by the Federal Court of Virginia– but nonetheless, Missourian’s just laid claim to an argument that has won elsewhere.

Common Denominator in Failed State Health Reform: Budget Woes

Photo by weddingssc1 via flickr.com

Despite the looming recession, it appears Washington plans to charge forward with health reform.  Many posts on our site cover the President’s ambitious agenda.

But the states may be a different story.  A round up of failed– or at least disappointing– health reform state initiatives over the past two weeks shows a consistent factor in the process: budget woes.  Many states have shown themselves to be not willing to overlook state budget crises in favor of immediate health reform.

Case in point: Washington State.  The state’s House approved a bill last week that would remove thousands of beneficiaries from basic state health care.  State officials would have authority to remove residents receiving separate benefits from the state’s Department of Social and Health Services, as well as discretionary removal of residents based on income, perceived access to private insurance, and how long a particular resident has received basic state health care.  The bill, according to the AP/Seatle Post-Intelligender, is likely to save the state $250 million (of the $9 billion annual budget gap that the state hopes to close).  The proposal is currently awaiting a vote in the state Senate.

Washington also recently imposed a new rule that would cut Medicaid reimbursements for brand-name prescription drugs– an intended savings of $1 million dollars a month.  However, two weeks ago the AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that a federal judge imposed a ban on enforcement of the new measure over concerns that it would restrict access to prescription drugs.  A hearing on May 18^th will determine whether the ban will be lifted or stayed.  Read more

Mergers In State Health Reform: Increased Efficacy or More Bureaucracy?

Photo by bigsurf via flickr

A health care coordination and consolidation proposal successfully made its way through the West Virginia Legislature last week and is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature.  The wide-ranging reform creates a cabinet-level office to coordinate health reform across West Virginia, consolidating many existing state agencies and programs– including public hospitals and the health reform efforts of state colleges and universities.  It even comes with a catchy acronym to boot– GOHELP: Governor’s Office of Health Enhancement and Lifestyle Planning.

State Delegate Don Perdue told the The Herald-Dispatch, “Health reform has been tried a number of times.  It fails because one agency is not talking to another, because the vision somewhere gets lost in the process.”  One might imagine Delegate Perdue to be referring to health reform in just about any state– and even the federal government.  Are West Virginia legislators so far ahead of our representatives in Washington?  Hopefully not.  As our blog reported last week (Obama Officially Establishes White House Office of Health Reform), President Obama recently signed an executive order with an arguably similar purpose: work with several federal executive branch agencies, states and local officials, and Congress to enact health reform and develop and implement strategic initiatives to strengthen the performance of the health care system.

In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick isn’t having as much luck.  The Boston Globe reports of a letter the Governor wrote to the chair of the state’s Health and education Facilities Authority (HEFA) instructing the agency to merge with the state’s Development Finance Agency by July 1, 2009.  The Governor’s office maintains that the merge will enhance HEFA’s ability to provide tax-exempt financing for hospitals and health facilities (as well as state educational institutions).  Critics see the attempt as a “power grab” and an attack on the safeguards that keep HEFA, and other quasi-public authorities like it, safe from political pressure and “gubernatorial interference.” Read more