Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:49:06.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United States Supreme Court and Health Law: The Year in Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Theodore W. Ruger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Problems in the field of health law often force tradeoffs between uniformity and particularity in health care decision-making. Patients are highly diverse in terms of their basic health status, willingness to accept risk or uncertainty in new treatments, and ability to pay for care. And health care experts - doctors, research scientists, insurance company reviewers, and health economists - are similarly diverse in their perception of the best treatment and payment structure choices. In a world with such persistent heterogeneity of opinions and preferences, a society's choice between centralized rules for treatment and payment and a more diffuse decisional regime is both crucial and controversial. Opt for a uniform national rule - say, a federal statute governing treatment standards, drug approval, or health finance - and many beneficial autonomous transactions between doctors and patients are squelched, with possible detrimental effects on population health and medical innovation.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , Fall 2005 , pp. 611 - 615
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

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

See 29 U.S.C. §§1181–87 (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), 42 U.S.C. §1395dd (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act), and 29 U.S.C. §§1001–1461 (Employee Retirement Income Security Act).Google Scholar
125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005).Google Scholar
See Chaoulli v. Attorney General, 2005 SCC 35.Google Scholar
529 U.S. 598 (2000).Google Scholar
317 U.S. 111 (1942).Google Scholar
538 U.S. 721 (2003).Google Scholar
531 U.S. 356 (2001).Google Scholar
See Raich, 125 S.Ct. at 2208 (“our task is a modest one” requiring only a judgment that Congress had a “rational basis for… concluding” that intrastate marijuana use affected interstate commerce).Google Scholar
See Raich, 125 S.Ct. at 2215. 10.505 U.S. 833 (1993).Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
123 S.Ct. 1965 (2003).Google Scholar
524 U.S. 624 (1998).Google Scholar
500 U.S. 173 (1991).Google Scholar
Though Quebec law prohibited private health insurance, it did not prevent patients with means from paying providers directly out of pocket, a so-called “fee for service” arrangement.Google Scholar
In specific, one Justice who was the deciding vote grounded the right in the Quebec constitution but not the Canadian national constitution. The three other justices who formed the 4–3 majority would have held that the long wait times and prohibition on private insurance also violated the national charter.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).Google Scholar
Tushnet, M., “Social Welfare Rights From the Right and the Left” (2005) (unpublished manuscript on file with author).Google Scholar
Chaoulli, at 2005 SCC 35, para. 255.Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 735 (1997).Google Scholar