Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-fxdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:53:08.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health Care Federalism and Next Steps in Health Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Abbe R. Gluck  and
Nicole Huberfeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The next steps in health reform, like all such efforts before it, will have to engage the issue of American health care federalism – the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health law and policy. Since its enactment in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has offered a robust example of modern federalism and revealed new complexities. This article recounts the findings of our five-year study of the federalist and nationalist features of ACA implementation. Contrary to the claims of ACA opponents that the law marked a federal “takeover,” the ACA's governance structures have advanced rather than suppressed state power. But we also found that the advances in state power occurred seemingly independently of the statute's structural arrangements; that is, the ACA's nationalist and federalist features both enhanced state power over health policy. These findings raise questions about whether cherished American federalism values are unique to federalist structures; they also raise the question of what exactly health care federalism is for, and why we continue to design health policy with federalism front and center. It is not clear that enhanced state power has brought better health policy. If it has not, is federalism for its own sake worth the trade-off?

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 46 , Issue 4: Next Steps in Health Reform , Winter 2018 , pp. 841 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

For a plenary description of this study and our theoretical analysis of its implications, see Gluck, A. R. and Huber-feld, N., “What Is Federalism in Health Care For?” Stanford Law Review 70, no. 6 (2018): 1689–1803, available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3128270> (last visited October 17, 2018); see also A. R. Gluck and N. Huberfeld, “The New Health Care Federalism on the Ground,” Indiana Health Law Review 15, no. 1 (2018): 7-19 (detailing interviews).Google Scholar
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010); amended by Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010).Google Scholar
Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Which States Have Approved and Pending Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers? Kaiser Family Foundation (May 24, 2018), available at <https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/which-states-have-approved-and-pending-section-1115-medicaid-waivers/> (last visited October 17, 2018).+(last+visited+October+17,+2018).>Google Scholar
Stewart v. Azar, Civ. Action No. 18-152 (JEB) (D. D.C., June 29, 2018).Google Scholar
Email from Kevin Counihan to authors (May 18, 2018) (on file with authors) (recounting remarks made in 2014 at the Yale Law School Conference on the Law of Medicare and Medicaid at 50).Google Scholar
Norris, L., Oregon Health Insurance Marketplace: History and News of the State's Exchange, Healthinsurance.org (Sept. 14, 2017), available at <https://www.healthinsurance.org/oregon-state-health-insurance-exchange> (last visited October 17, 2018) (“Oregon initially had a fully state-run exchange — Cover Oregon — but it was plagued with technological failures, and never worked as planned.”).Google Scholar
Telephone Interview with Former Federal Executive Branch Health Care Officials 2, 3, and 4 (Aug. 5, 2016) (on file with authors).Google Scholar