Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

The individual mandate and the impending Supreme Court challenge

Roger Collier
Policy
July 13, 2010
Share
Tweet
Share

The individual mandate is the single most controversial feature of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Everyone who can afford coverage—unless an undocumented immigrant or exempted on religious grounds—is required to have it or pay a penalty of $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

The rationale is straightforward: without a mandate, many people would wait until they needed care before buying insurance, driving up premiums for those with ongoing coverage, and potentially creating an “insurance death spiral” as the higher premiums lead to increasing numbers simply dropping their coverage. (This last part is basically what we have today, but will be magnified by PPACA’s ban on preexisting condition exclusions.)

The individual mandate was preferred for obvious reasons over the alternative of a general tax offset by credits for premiums paid. Democratic lawmakers had no wish to be blamed for imposition of a new tax—no matter how reasonable the arguments in its favor. In fact, as President Obama made clear in an ABC television interview: “I absolutely reject that notion [that the penalty is a tax].”

The individual mandate has now become the centerpiece in Republicans’ legal fight against reform. Suits challenging PPACA have been filed by the attorneys general of nineteen states (with the first, in Virginia, already being argued), with the constitutionality of the mandate a key issue in every case.

A recent Health Affairs includes articles affirming and denying the mandate’s constitutionality, by Timothy Jost and Ilya Shapiro respectively. Jost argues that the mandate is covered by the commerce clause of the Constitution, allowing the government to regulate interstate commerce—broadly defined as all economic activity—since a decision not to buy insurance has an economic impact on those who do have coverage. Shapiro argues that the government’s constitutional power cannot extend to a non-activity, like not buying insurance. Both authors also discuss whether or not the mandate penalty is really a tax and, if so, whether the government can impose it. Not surprisingly, Jost concludes that the penalty is a legitimate tax, and Shapiro concludes the opposite.

The Supreme Court’s eventual response is anyone’s guess, although reform advocates might well worry about the Court’s present conservative leaning. The timing of a Court ruling is equally uncertain; Jost notes that the Court might find the issue premature until the government attempts to impose the mandate penalty on specific individuals, something that will not happen until 2015 at the earliest, while Shapiro suggests that the Court may try to find a way to duck the constitutionality issue entirely.

All this uncertainty has important implications. States involved in the various legal challenges may drag their feet in setting up the insurance exchanges, possibly leaving the federal government to step in at the last minute. Insurers, already faced with actuarial problems, will face even more uncertainty in estimating enrollment from the currently uninsured (and typically healthier) population. And individuals, of course, will have their own gamble: risk the penalty or not.

What would be the possible impact of a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality? The federal government will lose anticipated penalty revenues of some $10 billion a year. Insurance premiums for individuals and small groups will rise with the loss of enrollment of many younger and healthier individuals. Most important of all, the number of uninsured will be significantly higher than if the penalty were in force, somewhere between the CBO estimate (assuming mandate penalties) of 22 million and today’s 50 million.

The reactions of individual states to an unconstitutionality finding would presumably reflect their politics, with states to the right of center being able to claim a fundamental failure of reform, especially as premiums increase in the absence of new healthier enrollees. Left-leaning states might take the option, however, of imposing their own individual mandates consistent with their state constitutions—much as Massachusetts did in 2006, although possibly with a different, more effective structure that would further lower the number of uninsured. And that might make for some interesting comparisons.

Roger Collier is a consultant specializing in health care policy issues who blogs at Health Care Reform Update.

Submit a guest post and be heard.

Prev

Ecstasy overdose is becoming more frequent at rave parties

July 13, 2010 Kevin 0
…
Next

Cancer in a transplant kidney, is it the doctor's fault?

July 13, 2010 Kevin 2
…

Tagged as: Public Health & Policy

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Ecstasy overdose is becoming more frequent at rave parties
Next Post >
Cancer in a transplant kidney, is it the doctor's fault?

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Roger Collier

  • New proposals for universal health care in Oregon and Washington

    Roger Collier
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    What if the individual mandate was unconstitutional?

    Roger Collier
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Political approaches on how to slow Medicare’s escalating costs

    Roger Collier

More in Policy

  • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

    Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James
  • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

    Holland Haynie, MD
  • Why health care leaders fail at execution—and how to fix it

    Dave Cummings, RN
  • Healing the doctor-patient relationship by attacking administrative inefficiencies

    Allen Fredrickson
  • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    Trevor Lyford, MPH
  • The CDC’s restructuring: Where is the voice of health care in the room?

    Tarek Khrisat, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Beyond burnout: Understanding the triangle of exhaustion [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

      Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO | Conditions
    • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

      Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James | Policy
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      G. van Londen, MD | Meds
    • Pharmacists are key to expanding Medicaid access to digital therapeutics

      Amanda Matter | Meds
    • Why ADHD in women requires a new approach [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 54 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Beyond burnout: Understanding the triangle of exhaustion [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

      Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO | Conditions
    • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

      Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James | Policy
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      G. van Londen, MD | Meds
    • Pharmacists are key to expanding Medicaid access to digital therapeutics

      Amanda Matter | Meds
    • Why ADHD in women requires a new approach [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

The individual mandate and the impending Supreme Court challenge
54 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...