Heartland Institute Reacts to Obamacare Guidelines from the Institute of Medicine

October 07, 2011

The Institute of Medicine on Friday released guidelines for the Obama administration to decide what constitutes an “essential benefits package” for the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The report is expected to form the basis for what most insurance companies will be required to cover by federal law starting in 2014.

The following statements from legal and health care experts at The Heartland Institute may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Tammy Nash at tnash@heartland.org and 312/377-4000. After regular business hours, contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/731-9364.


“This new federal requirement is just one more example of the legal issues lurking in Obamacare. Until now, required health insurance coverage has been set exclusively by the states, and policies have been sold entirely intrastate. States haven’t hesitated to mandate coverage of diseases du jour, but these coverage requirements vary widely from state to state. This is one reason health insurance is so expensive, leading many health care experts to advocate for insurance to be sold across state lines. From that standpoint, the federal government’s new role is likely welcome.

“But the states are not likely to give up their state mandates lightly. So the open legal question is whether all the varying state requirements still remain in place or whether they are pre-empted by the federal law. Still another reason why health insurance premiums will rise until this issue is resolved.”

Maureen Martin
Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs
The Heartland Institute
mmartin@heartland.org
920/ 295-6032 


“This raises questions some of us have been debating as we’ve seen Obamacare develop: How will contract disputes be resolved? In federal court? In the state court of the buyer? In the state court where the seller is located (assuming an out-of-state carrier)? By the Department of insurance? By the exchange itself?

“It would seem if HHS is determining required benefits, the federal courts would have jurisdiction for violations for coverage disputes. But would that also be true for other issues, such as timely payment of claims or misleading marketing? Is the carrier exempt from state litigation – for some of this, all of this, none of this? What a mess.”

Greg Scandlen
Senior Fellow, Health Care
The Heartland Institute
greg@chcchoices.org
312/377-4000


The Heartland Institute is a 27-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois; Washington, DC; Austin, Texas; Tallahassee, Florida; and Columbus, Ohio. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit its Web site or call 312/377-4000.