Latest Kaiser Health News Stories
A group of Democratic state attorneys general are betting the Supreme Court will take up the case and overturn a federal appeals court ruling in time for the 2020 elections. In other high-court news, most Republicans in Congress are asking the justices to use a Louisiana law to overturn the landmark abortion-rights ruling, Roe v. Wade. Joanne Kenen of Politico, Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal and Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this and more. Rovner also interviews NPR’s Richard Harris, who wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature.
Democrats have asked the Supreme Court to take up an appeals court ruling that could invalidate some or all of the federal health law. It’s not clear the court will take the case, but the efforts will carry consequences for both Democrats and Republicans.
A parental consent requirement for minors who seek abortions is still on the books in left-leaning Massachusetts, as well as about two dozen other states. But a proposed Massachusetts law seeks to repeal that consent requirement and shore up the right to abortion in case the Supreme Court strikes down the federal right to the procedure.
The federal government funneled billions in subsidies to software vendors and some overstated or deceived the government about what their products could do, according to whistleblowers.
The Texas Advance Directives Act gives hospitals the authority to stop life-sustaining support if another hospital won’t accept the patient. The family of Tinslee Lewis, a 10-month-old with serious medical problems, is fighting to keep her in hospital care.
Sutter Health will pay $575 million to settle a high-profile antitrust case filed by California’s attorney general. In addition, it has agreed to end a host of practices that the state alleged unfairly stifled competition.
KHN’s Julie Rovner is on PBS NewsHour and WBUR’s “Here & Now” to talk about the repercussions of a federal appeals court decision striking down the health law’s key requirement for people to get health coverage.
A federal appeals court in New Orleans has agreed with a lower court that a key piece of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. But it is sending the case back to the lower-court judge to decide how much of the rest of the law can stand. Also, Congress is leaving town after finishing work on a major spending bill that includes many changes to health policy. Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Kimberly Leonard of the Washington Examiner and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this and more.
Jane García, directora ejecutiva de la Clínica de La Raza, que opera una red de 30 centros comunitarios de salud, ha sido testigo activo de la lucha por la salud de los inmigrantes.
Jane Garcia is CEO of La Clínica de La Raza, which operates more than 30 clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area serving a high percentage of immigrant patients. She has challenged state and federal immigration policies in court, including the Trump administration’s recent attempt to expand the “public charge” rule.
The court, based in New Orleans, agreed with a federal judge in Texas that the individual mandate section of the Affordable Care Act could not stand after Congress eliminated the tax penalty for not having coverage. But the case now heads back to the lower court to see how much of the law can remain.
Todavía queda por delante un largo proceso judicial que tiene que determinar las partes de la ley que pueden seguir adelante sin un mandato individual.
The Affordable Care Act has been on the books for nearly a decade. Parts of it have become ingrained in our health system ― and in our everyday life. But this could change, depending on a long-awaited 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the law’s constitutionality.
Justices from the right and left ask whether Congress needs to keep its promises.
The case revolves around a health law provision designed to help insurers recover some losses because they had an unusually high number of sick and expensive customers. Insurers complain that when Republican lawmakers discontinued funding the program, it was like “Lucy Van Pelt pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.”
A California law, which took effect in July 2017, protects consumers who use an in-network hospital or other facility from surprise bills when cared for by an out-of-network doctor. But physicians say the law has allowed insurers to shrink networks, limiting access to those doctors who have contracted with the patients’ insurance plans.
Defensores de la salud mental dicen que la situación es particularmente difícil para los indocumentados, tanto para el acceso al tratamiento como con las autoridades de inmigración.