The two New Jersey activists who are suing the government to stop the healthcare-reform bill call attention to a set of provisions that received little or no attention: limitations on administrative and judicial review of provisions that, they say, amount to price-fixing.
Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr., in their complaint (Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al.), call attention to several provisions in HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most of which contain this rather curious language:
There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise, of [any of various procedures described earlier].
The sections that the Act mentions are presumably Sections 1869 and 1878 of the Social Security Act. Section 1869 (as amended as recently as 2000) has to do with patient appeals of benefits determinations under Medicare. Section 1878 describes an appeals process for health-care providers.
This "no judicial review" phrase occurs in these contexts:
- Value-based incentive payments to hospitals (see page 630 of this document).
- Deciding which physicians might be truely said to have participated in the treatment of any given patient (p. 653).
- Value-based payments and assessments of quality of care (p. 676).
- The handling of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infection cases (p. 680).
- Cost-effectiveness modeling (p. 725).
- Quality-of-care and payment determinations involving Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). (p. 738.) (This provision also cuts out 44 USC 35, having to do with federal policy coordination.)
- Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-related payments and payments for hospital readmissions (p. 772)
- Reimbursements to hospitals for "uncompensated care" (for which the patient, for whatever reason, cannot pay) (p. 831).
- Direct proposals by the President to Congress concerning changes in reimbursement rates (p. 1013).
- Identification of primary-care physicians, as distinct from specialists (p. 1415).
- Determinations of the need for more hospitals (p. 1512).
In addition, these two provisions are declared not subject to judicial review (with no mention of administrative review):
- Moratoriums on the enrollment of new providers under Medicare and/or Medicaid (p. 1679).
- Determinations of "high-need cures" (p. 2303).
Every one of these contexts involves the setting of prices, the determination of who is entitled to payment, and in some cases, the erection of explicit barriers to entry. Yet the bill does not specifically abrogate the applicable provisions of antitrust law, but instead declares that no judicial review will be allowed, whether under the Social Security Act and its applicable sections, or any other body of law.
Purpura and Laster, in their role as representatives of "the people" (as named in the Preamble to the Constitution), object on two grounds:
These thirteen cutouts from judicial review essentially place the federal government above the law, and specifically above antitrust law, and in a way involving legislative subterfuge, because Congress never passed a "single-payer" system and never voted specifically to abrogate antitrust law, in this or any other bill.
Any provision forbidding judicial review of a law flies in the face of separation of powers, and removes the protection of "due process of law" mentioned in Amendment V (and also in Amendment XIV).
The complaint expresses the fear that the government will simply force private providers of medical care, and insurance, out of business or employment, so that no alternative will exist to what many observers have already suggested that the framers of this law really want: a government-run health-care service in the mold of those in Canada and the United Kingdom. And they have a point: multiple providers are already closing their doors, and many large employers are seeking waivers of certain regulations that would otherwise make the carriage of insurance on their employees impossible.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
Either way it is wrong, after all how can this "nation" continue to survive if it continues to abuse power, take tax dollars, and print non-existent un-backed currency to "satisfy" debts?
Better we start over methinks...(sans revolution, as that is simply pointless and beyond ridiculous, starting over means ridding ourselves of the beast we call DC and paying back what must be paid, while re-instituting a true "standard" of backing for our money)
I assume you mean precious metals. I'll tell you how far I'd go with that one: the Sixth Amendment says that you get the right to a trial by jury if someone is suing over $20 or more. Well, $20 used to be one Troy ounce. Maybe it's time to amend the Sixth Amendment to read, "In suits at common law, when the value in question shall exceed that of one Troy ounce of gold,..." Or maybe these days, make that half an ounce.
No kidding, and no sarcasm intended, here. I find nothing wrong in what you say, or imply.
Hi Jesse. If americans were aware of the real costs of government programs they would be far less enthusiastic about the proposed benefits.
Happy New Year Gentlemen. Interesting discussion.
Let me tell you one thing that the best health insurance plans has completely different set of meaning for different type of people. For those who are rich, the plan which can earn them more is best. However, those who are in the middle class have different ideas. They think that insurance plan is the best for which they will have to pay minimum premium. However, the poor person does not even know that what is health insurance? If you are one of them search online for "Wise Health Insurance" and get smart about insurance.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!