We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
What does the question of "severability" mean
for providers of health care (hospitals, health systems,
physicians, nurses, and other allied health care
professions)?
Today, the first argument before the Supreme Court was the
question of what happens if parts of the Affordable Care Act are
ruled unconstitutional. Opponents contend that if the Court
determines the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, then the
entire law should be struck down. The federal government contends
the individual mandate is constitutional, but that if the Courts
determines all other parts of the ACA should be allowed to stand.
with the exception of certain insurance market reforms. In legal
terminology, the lawyers and court refer to the question of whether
or not parts of the law can stand while others are struck down as
"severability" – can parts of the law be
severed, or separated, from others. (For additional background on
the issue click
here.)
If the Court were to strike down the individual mandate and keep
other provisions in place, it could have an adverse impact on many
providers. In general, health care providers accepted the
individual mandate requirement, the insurance-market reforms, and
Medicare cuts, and other revenue-raising provisions as a package
deal. Eliminating the requirement that all individuals have health
insurance coverage (thereby spreading the risk), would essentially
mean that some providers would see their reimbursement cut, and
would receive a double whammy of getting little relief from the
amount of uncompensated care they provide because the promise of
more patients having insurance would not come to fruition.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has gone from a distant deadline to an imminent reality, with the controversial "play or pay" provisions scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014.
Earlier this week, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided several questions of first impression on important insurance coverage issues. In Capstone Building Corp. & Capstone Dev. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886, 2013 Conn. LEXIS 187 (2013), the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed three certified questions arising out of an underlying action in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims had been brought against an insurer.
In a recent case, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, applying Missouri law, granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a late notice defense upon finding that a showing of prejudice was not required in the context of a claims made policy.
Alexandra Levi was the daughter of an employee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (the diocese). Ms. Levi alleged she was abused over a six-year period by a priest employed by the diocese.
A commentary on a recent decision in the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc., v. L. H. Bolduc Co., interpreting a subcontractor's agreement to indemnify a contractor, the subcontractor's contractual obligation to procure insurance to cover that indemnity agreement and the impact of the Minnesota anti-indemnification statute on such contract provisions.
