Lee Jeffrey J, Kelly Deena, McHugh Matthew D
1University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2011 Nov;12(4):236-44. doi: 10.1177/1527154411432645. Epub 2012 Mar 27.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 is landmark legislation designed to expand access to health care for virtually all legal U.S. residents. A vital but controversial provision of the ACA requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or face a tax penalty-the individual mandate. We examine the constitutionality of the individual mandate by analyzing relevant court decisions. A critical issue has been defining the "activities" Congress is authorized to regulate. Some judges determined that the mandate was constitutional because the decision to go without health insurance, that is, to self-insure, is an activity with substantial economic effects within the overall scheme of the ACA. Opponents suggest that Congress overstepped its authority by regulating "inactivity," that is, compelling people to purchase insurance when they otherwise would not. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the issues and the final ruling will shape the effectiveness of health reform.
2010年的《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)是一项具有里程碑意义的立法,旨在让几乎所有美国合法居民都能更方便地获得医疗保健服务。该法案一项至关重要但颇具争议的条款要求个人维持医疗保险覆盖范围,否则将面临税收处罚,即个人强制参保规定。我们通过分析相关法院判决来审视个人强制参保规定的合宪性。一个关键问题在于界定国会有权监管的“活动”。一些法官判定该强制参保规定符合宪法,因为不购买医疗保险(即自行保险)的决定,在《平价医疗法案》的整体框架内是一项具有重大经济影响的活动。反对者则认为,国会通过监管“不作为”(即迫使人们在原本不会购买保险时购买保险)超越了其权力范围。美国最高法院准备审查这些问题,最终裁决将决定医疗改革的成效。