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 patients?
The issue of severability is the most important argument for
patients, as it puts very popular provisions of the Affordable Care
Act (ACA) in jeopardy. If the Supreme Court rules that the
individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable from ACA,
the entire law would be invalidated, including the guaranteed-issue
provision and the community-rating provision.
The insurance-market reforms may be some of the most touted
pieces by supporters of the ACA. These provision bars insurers from
denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition or imposing
life-time or annual limits on a person's health care coverage.
The community-rating provision prohibits insurers from charging
higher premiums based on a patient's medical history. These two
provisions are very important to people with disabilities or with
chronic or expensive health conditions, as these patients were
those traditionally found it incredibly difficult — if
not impossible — to find affordable health care to cover
their treatments.
Other popular provisions would be invalidated if the individual
mandate were found unconstitutional and the law were deemed not
severable, including some that have gone into effect –
allowing young adults to stay on their parents' insurance until
age 26 and expanding prescription drug coverage for Medicare
beneficiaries, to name just a few.
To read the impact of severability on health care providers,
click
here.
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.
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.
Less than two weeks apart, two appellate courts issued opinions analyzing whether faulty work claims are covered under commercial general liability policies, each reaching a different result.
Like many companies who made products containing asbestos, Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation has over the past several decades defended thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought by construction workers who allege they were exposed and suffered bodily injury resulting from exposure to Kaiser Cement’s asbestos containing products.
Many jurisdictions have announced that they plan to more actively pursue natural resource damages from potentially responsible parties deemed liable under CERCLA or Superfund.
As reported in our November 2012 Client Alert entitled Latest Regulatory Developments Concerning Unclaimed Life Insurance Benefits, a few states have passed new laws governing claims investigation practices to address the issue of unclaimed life insurance benefits.
A New York appellate court recently upheld a supreme court ruling that an insurer had a duty to defend a manufacturer’s faulty workmanship where it resulted in third party property damage. I.J. White Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 2500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Apr. 16, 2013).
In Farkas v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 12-1481, 2013 WL 1459248 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order and held that a Directors & Officers (D&O) liability insurer had no duty to defend the chairman of the policyholder after he was convicted of criminal fraud.
