Health Care Reform: Has the Supreme Court Already Embraced the Individual Mandate?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily M. Bass
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Reform ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
The Individual

scholarly journals Providers, Prescriptions and Patients: Methodology for U.S. Health Care Reform

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-68
Author(s):  
Peter Cabeceiras
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Reform ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Bundled Payments ◽  
Shortage Of Physicians ◽  
Individual Mandate ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Care Improvement ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Health care reform should be considered equal parts moral and economic issues. The United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world ($2.6 trillion annually), yet the U.S. has some of the worst health outcomes of developed nations.1,2 Although health care spending comprises over one-sixth of the economy (17.9% of GDP), over fifty million U.S. citizens live without health insurance. The U.S. needs to use finances more efficaciously not only to enhance quality of care and patient outcomes, but to avoid a looming economic crisis.3 Recently, the Congressional Budget Office reported that if Medicare cost inflation exceeds overall economic growth by 2.5%, the top marginal tax rates in 2050 will approach 92%.3,4 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) addresses problems associated with cost, coverage and quality by introducing: the Individual Mandate, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and many more pilot programs that act as vehicles of site-specific reform. However, underlying health care problems still remain that must be resolved to facilitate the ACA reforms. These daunting issues include, but are certainly not limited to: the shortage of physicians, ACO practitioner liability, weaknesses of the Individual Mandate, the remaining uninsured and the outmoded practices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The goal of this paper is to address these problems and propose strategic reforms that will either augment or exist concomitantly with the ACA.

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity of a person under article 1 of the protocol no. 6: Individual interpretations of the essence and consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-267
Author(s):  
Bohdan V. Shchur ◽  
Iryna V. Basysta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Method Comparison ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual

In present-day Ukraine, there is no unanimous answer to the question of the essence and consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive immunity under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 either in the national criminal procedural legislation, or in the theory of criminal procedure, or among judges, investigators, prosecutors. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to try to attempt to formulate individual approaches to address this issue. The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned upon its theoretical and practical components. The former is that there this area is heavily understudied, and judicial practice, among other things, requires a certain scientific basis to formulate individual positions in their unity. The dilemma proposed in the title of this study was also addressed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court, who were approached by judges of the Grand Chamber for scientific opinions, emphasising the urgency and necessity of feedback from practitioners. To formulate the individual approaches serving the purpose of this study, the authors employed such general and special research methods as dialectical, induction and deduction, Aristotelian, system-structural, sampling method, comparison, and legal forecasting. Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6, adopted by its plenary session in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol No. 6 to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, is “procedural”, it was proven that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct proceedings on the application of such a person to review the judgment precisely in exceptional circumstances. It is emphasised that the ECHR decision should be considered as one that does not aim at the final assessment of criminal proceedings, so it cannot be equated with the decision of an international judicial institution, which would state Ukraine's violation of international obligations in court and the order of its execution will differ. The authors also address the fact that the consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 are critical. After all, such a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the “bell” for Ukraine, which, among other things, may hint at the probability that the Court will identify the facts of human rights violations

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document