The Affordable Care Act and Civil Rights: The Challenge of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.

S. Rosenbaum
{"title":"The Affordable Care Act and Civil Rights: The Challenge of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.","authors":"S. Rosenbaum","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I n May 2016, the Obama Administration issued longawaited regulations implementing §1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).1 Broad in scope, §1557 does what virtually no civil rights law has done before: it extends the principle of nondiscrimination to the content of health insurance, that is, coverage standards themselves. At the same time, however, the challenge of insuring nearly all residents within the world’s costliest health care system, coupled with long-standing insurer traditions designed to shield companies, sponsors, and policyholders from excessive costs, underscores the many complexities involved in balancing coverage with equity. Section 1557 provides that no individual shall be barred from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, any part of which receives federal financial assistance. The concept of federal financial assistance reaches not just grants or public insurance payments but also tax credits, government payment subsidies, and contracts of insurance. The principle of discrimination incorporates the cornerstones of US civil rights law—Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (disability), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (age). The reach of existing civil rights laws into health care has been considerable and transformative in its own right. But these laws were generally interpreted as falling short of reaching health insurance coverage itself.2 The US Supreme Court ruled that disability antidiscrimination law does not bar state Medicaid programs from imposing across-the-board limits on hospital coverage, even though such limits may leave people with disabilities without access to adequate treatment. Lower courts have similarly ruled in the past that disability nondiscrimination law does","PeriodicalId":78777,"journal":{"name":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"464-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

I n May 2016, the Obama Administration issued longawaited regulations implementing §1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).1 Broad in scope, §1557 does what virtually no civil rights law has done before: it extends the principle of nondiscrimination to the content of health insurance, that is, coverage standards themselves. At the same time, however, the challenge of insuring nearly all residents within the world’s costliest health care system, coupled with long-standing insurer traditions designed to shield companies, sponsors, and policyholders from excessive costs, underscores the many complexities involved in balancing coverage with equity. Section 1557 provides that no individual shall be barred from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, any part of which receives federal financial assistance. The concept of federal financial assistance reaches not just grants or public insurance payments but also tax credits, government payment subsidies, and contracts of insurance. The principle of discrimination incorporates the cornerstones of US civil rights law—Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (disability), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (age). The reach of existing civil rights laws into health care has been considerable and transformative in its own right. But these laws were generally interpreted as falling short of reaching health insurance coverage itself.2 The US Supreme Court ruled that disability antidiscrimination law does not bar state Medicaid programs from imposing across-the-board limits on hospital coverage, even though such limits may leave people with disabilities without access to adequate treatment. Lower courts have similarly ruled in the past that disability nondiscrimination law does
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《平价医疗法案》与民权:对《平价医疗法案》第1557条的挑战。
2016年5月,奥巴马政府发布了期待已久的法规,实施《平价医疗法案》(ACA)第1557条在广泛的范围内,第1557条做了以前几乎没有民权法做过的事情:它将不歧视原则扩展到健康保险的内容,即覆盖标准本身。然而,与此同时,在世界上最昂贵的医疗保健系统中为几乎所有居民提供保险的挑战,加上保险公司长期以来旨在保护公司,赞助商和保单持有人免受过高成本的传统,凸显了平衡覆盖与公平所涉及的许多复杂性。第1557条规定,任何个人不得被禁止参与、被剥夺利益或在任何项目或活动中受到歧视,任何项目或活动的任何部分获得联邦财政援助。联邦财政援助的概念不仅包括拨款或公共保险支付,还包括税收抵免、政府支付补贴和保险合同。歧视原则结合了美国民权法律的基石——1964年《民权法案》第六章(种族、肤色和国籍)、1972年《教育修正案》第九章(性别)、1973年《康复法案》第504节(残疾)和1975年《年龄歧视法》(年龄)。现有民权法对医疗保健的影响是相当大的,而且本身就具有变革性。但是这些法律通常被解释为没有达到健康保险的覆盖范围美国最高法院裁定,残疾人反歧视法并不禁止各州医疗补助计划对医院覆盖范围施加全面限制,即使这种限制可能会使残疾人无法获得适当的治疗。在过去,下级法院也曾做出类似的裁决,认为残疾人不歧视法是有效的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measurement of Nasal Mucociliary Clearance in Indian Adults: Normative Data. Acknowledgments. Acknowledgments In the December 2019 Issue of the Quarterly In the September 2019 Issue of the Quarterly.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1