Podcast appearances and mentions of Timothy Jost

Sam and Emma host Timothy Jost, Emeritus Professor at Washington & Lee University Law School, to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court Case Talevski v. Health and Hospital Corps of Marion County. Then, they are joined by Nick Weiner, Senior Campaign Lead for the Committee for Better Banks at the Communications Workers of America, to discuss Wells Fargo's recent unionization efforts. Check out Tim's writing on the case here: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/supreme-court-could-strip-protections-millions-federal-program-beneficiaries Check out this video from More Perfect Union on Wells Fargo worker's efforts here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASi7INcnSXA&t=36s&ab_channel=MorePerfectUnion Check out the Committee on Better Banks here: https://betterbanks.org/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: IAC Laser Engraving: IAC Laser Engraving is a Leftist-owned Worker Collective started by long time listener Ryan Lubin in September of 2021. They use sustainably sourced materials  coupled with extremely energy efficient laser technology to bring you unique products that you won't find anywhere else! Visit https://www.iaclasers.com/ to order yours today and  enter in Coupon Code: "MAJORITY10" at purchase to receive a 10% discount on their AMAZING products."  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Prof. Timothy Jost is a professor emeritus at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. T.S. Jost. Considering Race and Ethnicity in Covid Risk Assessments — Legal Concerns and Possible Solutions. N Engl J Med 2022;387:481-483.

Hosts Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter welcome Timothy Jost, Professor Emeritus at the Washington and Lee School of Law. Professor Jost is considered one of the preeminent analysts of health law in America, particularly the Affordable Care Act. He discusses the rocky road ahead for the health law with a Biden presidency blocked by a GOP controlled Senate and a heavily conservative-leaning Supreme Court which will soon hear another case aimed at repealing some, or all, of the ACA. To stream our Station live 24/7 visit www.HealthcareNOWRadio.com or ask your Smart Device to “….Play HealthcareNOW Radio”. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen/

This week, hosts Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter speak with Timothy Jost, Professor Emeritus at the Washington and Lee School of Law. Professor Jost is considered one of the preeminent analysts of health law in America, particularly the Affordable Care Act. He discusses the rocky road ahead for the health law with a Biden presidency blocked by a GOP controlled Senate and a heavily conservative-leaning Supreme Court which will soon hear another case aimed at repealing some, or all, of... Read More Read More The post Health Law Scholar Professor Tim Jost: Roadmap After the Election appeared first on Healthy Communities Online.

Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, discusses the federal appellate court decision striking down the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as unconstitutional, but punting on whether that means the rest of the law must also be invalidated. He speaks to Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, discusses the federal appellate court decision striking down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as unconstitutional, but punting on whether that means the rest of the law must also be invalidated. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee School of Law, discusses how a ruling by a federal judge that the Trump administration can expand the sale of short-term health insurance policies not meeting the standards of the Affordable Care Act, helps President Trump in his plan to undo Obamacare. He speaks to Bloomberg's June Grasso Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee School of Law, discusses how a ruling by a federal judge that the Trump administration can expand the sale of short-term health insurance policies not meeting the standards of the Affordable Care Act, helps President Trump in his plan to undo Obamacare. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso

Timothy Jost, a professor  at Washington and Lee School of Law, discusses the ramifications of a Texas federal judge’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.  He talks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso about why he thinks the ruling will be reversed on appeal.

Timothy Jost, a professor  at Washington and Lee School of Law, discusses the ramifications of a Texas federal judge's ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.  He talks with Bloomberg's June Grasso about why he thinks the ruling will be reversed on appeal. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee School of Law, discusses why the Trump administration is siding with the state of Texas in a challenge to key parts of the Affordable Care Act. The administration took the unusual step of siding with a state against a federal government policy as President Trump continues efforts to dismantle Obamacare. Plus, Steve Sanders, a professor at the University of Indiana Maurer School of Law, discusses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's second day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee School of Law, discusses why the Trump administration is siding with the state of Texas in a challenge to key parts of the Affordable Care Act. The administration took the unusual step of siding with a state against a federal government policy as President Trump continues efforts to dismantle Obamacare. Plus, Steve Sanders, a professor at the University of Indiana Maurer School of Law, discusses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's second day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

David Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, discusses why the federal judge presiding over the reunification of migrant children with their families is calling the government's efforts "unacceptable" and instructing the Trump administration to appoint a person or team of people to create a procedure to return kids to their parents. Plus, Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, discusses a new lawsuit brought against the Trump administration by a group of U.S. cities, that argue that the Trump administration is killing the Affordable Care Act and driving up healthcare prices. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

David Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, discusses why the federal judge presiding over the reunification of migrant children with their families is calling the government's efforts "unacceptable" and instructing the Trump administration to appoint a person or team of people to create a procedure to return kids to their parents. Plus, Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, discusses a new lawsuit brought against the Trump administration by a group of U.S. cities, that argue that the Trump administration is killing the Affordable Care Act and driving up healthcare prices. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In this episode of KHN’s “What the Health?” Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News and Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call discuss President Donald Trump’s proposals to control prescription drug prices and the efforts to sell the plan to lawmakers and the public. Also, Julie interviews emeritus law professor Timothy Jost about the state of the Affordable Care Act.

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University Law School, discusses a legal challenge against the Trump administration, which was brought by Minnesota and New York State in response to rollbacks in low-income healthcare funding. Plus, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, discusses efforts by the Democratic party to redraw the North Carolina congressional election map, which is being challenged in a barrage of court cases for being partisan. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University Law School, discusses a legal challenge against the Trump administration, which was brought by Minnesota and New York State in response to rollbacks in low-income healthcare funding. Plus, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, discusses efforts by the Democratic party to redraw the North Carolina congressional election map, which is being challenged in a barrage of court cases for being partisan. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Abbe Gluck, director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, and Timothy Jost, professor at Washington and Lee University Law School, discuss the future of Obamacare subsidies after Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said that "no decision has been made" on the destiny of the Affordable Care Act subsidies. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Abbe Gluck, director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, and Timothy Jost, professor at Washington and Lee University Law School, discuss the future of Obamacare subsidies after Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said that "no decision has been made" on the destiny of the Affordable Care Act subsidies. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Abbe Gluck, director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, and Timothy Jost, professor at Washington and Lee University Law School, discuss the future of Obamacare subsidies after Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said that "no decision has been made" on the destiny of the Affordable Care Act subsidies. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Abbe Gluck, director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, and Timothy Jost, professor at Washington and Lee University Law School, discuss the future of Obamacare subsidies after Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said that "no decision has been made" on the destiny of the Affordable Care Act subsidies. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

We've paid a lot of attention this year to the bill that would “Repeal and Replace” the Affordable Care Act but that is not the only bill related to health care that is moving through Congress. In this episode, learn about the other health care bills that have made it just as far as the Repeal and Replace bill, including one that is already law. Also in this episode, we laugh at the Senate for inventing holidays and doing so in the dumbest way possible. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD123: Health or Profits CD145: Price of Health Care CD151: AHCA - The House Version Bills Outline Laws H.J. Res. 430: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients. Overturns a rule finalized by the Obama Administration that would have prevented States from cutting off Federal funds for "family-planning services". Bills In Progress H.R. 372: Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017 Repeals an antitrust exemption that currently applies to health and dental insurance Allows antitrust exemptions for life insurance, and property or casualty insurance H.R. 1101: Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2017 Orders the Executive Branch to use regulations to create a procedure for certifying Association Health Plans (AHPs), which are not regulated like the state small group health insurance markets. Association Health Plans and the insurance companies that provide coverage will select the services included and their decisions are exempt from State laws. Creates a fund that will pay insurers to continue coverage if the plans disappears. The fund can be raided by the Executive Branch to pay for other things "whenever the Secretary determines that the moneys of the fund are in excess of current needs." A working group would be created to write the regulations. The applications for plans will include the States in which the plan intends to do business. If the association plan becomes insolvent, the government will become the trustee and can try to fix the plan, cancel the plan entirely, and can invest the plans assets. Would become effective one year after being signed into law and enactment regulations would be created by the Secretary of Labor. H.R. 1215: Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 Enacts a statue of limitations on filing health care lawsuits which would be one year after the injury is discovered but never more than three years after the malpractice occurred The states can make the statue of limitations shorter Limits non-economic damages (such as pain, suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, and mental anguish) to $250,000, "regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury." "The jury shall note be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages." States will have the ability to adjust this number, up or down. Actual economic losses (such as medical expenses, past and future earnings losses, and loss of employment) in health care lawsuits will remain unlimited. Each guilty party in a health care lawsuit will only be held liable for the percentage of the damages in direct proportion to that party's percentage of responsibility. Doctors who prescribe a medicine that has been approved by the FDA can't be sued along with manufacturers, distributors, or sellers in product liability lawsuits Any statements or conduct expressing "fault" (along with apology, sympathy, etc.) made by a health care provider in regards to an unexpected medical outcome "shall be inadmissible" for any purpose as evidence of an admission of liability. States are allowed to make other communications inadmissible too. The statute of limitations would be effective immediately upon enactment and the limits on damages will be for all lawsuits started after the law is signed. Additional Reading Document: H.R. 1628 Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017 Cost Estimate, Congressional Budget Office, July 19, 2017. Article: The Washington Post's New Social Media Policy Forbids Disparaging Advertisers by Andrew Beaujon, Washingtonian, June 27, 2017. Document: H.R. 1628 Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 Cost Estimate, Congressional Budget Office, June 26, 2017. Document: H.R. 1628 American Health Care Act of 2017 Cost Estimate, Congressional Budget Office, May 24, 2017. Article: Examining The Final Market Stabilization Rule: What's There, What's Not, And How Might It Work? by Timothy Jost, Health Affairs Blog, April 14, 2017. Document: Guidance to States on Review of Qualified Health Plan Certification Standards in Federally-facilitated Marketplaces for Plan Years 2018 and Later, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, April 13, 2017. Article: Treasury Inspector General Assesses ACA-Related Tax Issues by Timothy Jost, Health Affairs Blog, April 11, 2017. Document: Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients by Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 243, December 19, 2016. Article: Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993? by Jon Greenberg, Politifact, November 15, 2013. References American Civil Liberties Union: Public Funding for Abortion GovTrack: Health Bills Tracker Cornell Law School: 15 U.S. Code § 1013 Kevin McCarthy Majority Leader website: Health Care Phase 3: The Small Business Health Fairness Act ConsumersUnion: Letter to the House Opposing the Small Business Health Fairness Act OpenSecrets: Clients lobbying on H.R. 1215 American Medical Association: Support for House-Passed Bill on Medical Liability Google: UnitedHealth Group Stock US Senate Financial Disclosure: James Inhofe Stock Purchases American Health Insurance Plans: Letter to President Trump Dept of Health and Human Services: Letter to Governor regarding Medicaid Medicaid: About Section 1115 Demonstrations Washington Post: About WP Brandstudio Videos CSPAN: Pres. Trump Remarks on Senate Republican Health Care Bill YouTube: Hell to the Nah! Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Rules Committee Hearing, House of Representatives Committee on Rules, February 14, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 6:40 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): I’ll make the point I continue to make about the process. Both of these rules, or protections, went through a long process, and whether you agree with them or not, there was a process. Here we are; the committees with jurisdiction did no hearings on this, have basically—there’ll be no opportunity for review. We know what the outcome is going to be: two more closed rules. So it’s kind of this whole hearing is kind of pointless because, again, the process is going to be the most restrictive that it can be. 9:40 Rep. Tim Walberg (MI): As you know, Title X is the only domestic federal program that provides grants for family-planning services. Grants go directly to states and non-governmental organizations, which then distribute money among healthcare providers. Over half of the grantees are state and local governmental agencies, which serve as intermediaries to distribute funding to subgrantees. Prior to this rule, states were free to direct their Title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in abortion. When states had this freedom, they were able to choose to invest in women’s health care instead of abortion. The new rule blocks states from restricting grants to potential recipients for reasons other than the ability to provide Title X services. Under this rule, states are prevented from establishing criteria that would eliminate abortion providers from receiving Title X grant money. Hearing: H.R. 372, the "Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017", House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, February 16, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 10:15 Rep. John Conyers (MI): I am pleased that the subcommittee’s first hearing of this new Congress is on H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, which repeals the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the health insurance business. For many years I’ve advocated for such a repeal, so I’m heartened to see the bipartisan nature of the support for this position. 11:50 Rep. John Conyers (MI): Congress passed McCarran-Ferguson Act in response to a 1944 Supreme Court decision, finding that antitrust laws applied to the business of insurance, like everything else. Both insurance companies and the states expressed concern about that decision. Insurance companies worried that it would jeopardize certain collective practices like joint-rate setting and a pooling of historical data, and the states were concerned about losing their authority to regulate and tax the business of insurance. To address these concerns, McCarran-Ferguson provided the federal antitrust laws apply to the business of insurance only to the extent that it is not regulated by state law, which has resulted in a broad antitrust exemption. Industry and state revenue concerns, rather than the key goals of protecting competition and consumers, were the primary drivers of the Act. In passing McCarran-Ferguson, Congress, however, initially intended to provide only a temporary exemption and, unfortunately, gave little to consideration to ensuring competition. 26:15 Rep. Austin Scott (GA): Be definition, health care and health insurance are not the same thing. But when one insurance company controls such significant portions of the cash flow of all of the providers in a region, no provider can stay in business without a contract with that carrier. Therefore, the insurance company gets to determine who is and who is not able to provide health care: sign a contract with a competing carrier, and we’ll cancel your contract. Accept the lower reimbursement, or we’ll cancel your contract. It’s closer to extortion than negotiation. Hearing: Legislative Proposals to Improve Health Care Coverage, House Committee on Education and Workforce, March 1, 2017. Witnesses Allison Klausner: American Benefits Council, which represents Fortune 500 companies Lydia Mitts: Associate Director of Affordability at Families USA, a consumer advocate org. Jay Ritchie: Executive VP of Toko Marine HCC-Stop Loss Group & Chairman of the Self-Insurance Institute of America Jon Hurst: President of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts Timestamps & Transcripts 25:50 Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): Ultimately, they are fighting to maintain government control—government control over the kind of health insurance you can buy, government control over the kind of health insurance employers can and cannot offer workers, government control over the doctors you can see and the doctors you can’t see, and government control over certain healthcare benefits that many individuals may not need. Yet despite the cost and pain inflicted on so many Americans by Obamacare, the answer for some is still more government control. 47:35 Lydia Mitts: The second bill I would like to speak to is the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This bill would exempt association health plans from adhering to critical state and federal requirements for small-group coverage. These requirements have benefited small employers and their workers alike. They include protections that prevent plans from charging small employers exorbitantly higher premiums because their employees have poor health, are older, or are disproportionately women. They also include requirements that plans cover comprehensive benefits that meet the needs of a diverse workforce. By allowing association health plans to ignore these key protections, this bill would increase premiums and threaten stable access to comprehensive coverage for many small employers and their workers. Employers with a young workforce that is in pristine health may be able to get lower premiums. However, the rest of small businesses would see coverage become less affordable, whether they sought it through an association or the existing small-group market. On top of this, employees move to association plans would be at risk of facing skimpier coverage that doesn’t cover the care they need. 1:41:20 Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (OR): Ms. Mitts, the ACA included, as we know, unprecedented new consumer protections for patients, such as eliminating annual and lifetime limits, preventing insurers from dropping people when they get sick, charging women higher premiums. What will happen to these protections in association health plans? Lydia Mitts: Under the bill put forth to you today, those association health plans would no longer have to comply with so many of those rating protections that have been a huge benefit to many small businesses that prior before the Affordable Care Act actually had a really hard time finding affordable coverage for their employees because they employed employees who actually had healthcare needs, who were maybe older, and the market didn’t work for them before. And so we would move back to a situation where we’d have a segmented market, and people who are healthy, in pristine health, could move into an association health plan. I think the thing that’s important to keep in mind is that that doesn’t mean that association health plan would always be there and work for that small employer. If their workforce got older, claims went up, they might find that that association health plan charges them more, and it’s not a viable option for them anymore. Bonamici: Can you address—I know there’ve been some solvency concerns about some of the association health plans. Can you address that concern as well? Mitts: Yeah, there’s historically been concerns about association health plans not having adequate solvency funds. They have leaner, less rigid requirements than typical health insurance coverage. Partially state oversight was added to that to help address some of these problems, bigger problems, where they were just under ERISA. And when an association plan goes insolvent, their employers and their workers are still left with all of those unpaid medical claims and then on the hook for them. And if the plans are not under state jurisdiction, they won’t be able to benefit from state guaranty funds that help pay those claims, so they’ll be left on the hook for them. Hearing: H.R. 1215 Hearing-Part 1, House Committee on the Judiciary, February 28, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 44:20 Rep. Steve King (IA): One of the drivers of higher healthcare spending is defensive medicine. It’s a very real phenomenon confirmed by countless studies in which healthcare workers conduct many additional costly tests and procedures with no medical value that are charged to the federal taxpayers and to other consumers simply to avoid excessive litigation costs. 45:25 Rep. Steve King (IA): They include the following: a bedside sonogram with an “official sonogram” because it’s easier to defend yourself to a jury if you’ve ordered the second sonogram; a CT scan for every child who bumped his head, or her head, to rule out things that can be diagnosed just fine by observation; x-rays that do not guide treatment such as for a simple broken arm; or CT scans for suspected appendicitis that has been perfectly well diagnosed without it. In fact, I have an orthopedic surgeon who has said to me that when he has a knee injury, 97% of the tests that he orders are protection from malpractice. He knows what he’s going to operate on before he actually starts the surgery. 51:55 Steve Cohen: And if we want to make health care cheaper, which we should, and make it more affordable, we ought to have a single-payer system. That would make it more affordable. And if that’s the nexus that makes this law applicable for the federal government to usurp the states, and the Chairman said that the nexus was that it makes things cheaper and anything makes health care cheaper is so important that we need to take it away from the states, well, if you’re concerned about cost, you should be for a single-payer system, and that would make it cheaper and take profits away from insurance companies that right now are paying for ads to get people to buy drugs and making immense profits and having their executives draw salaries in the areas of 40 and 50 million dollars. This bill takes away from people who are hurt by medical malpractice in ways that are artificial and wrong, and we should not be on the side of those people who commit medical malpractice and cause injuries to others. With all of that said, I respectfully suggest that the agenda we’re following is not the agenda of the American people at the present time, and it’s the agenda of the American Medical Association, who’s here today, and this is the bill du jour. Hearing: Tom Price, HHS Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request, Senate Finance Committee, June 8, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 44:37 Sen. Tom Carper (DE): And I like those ideas. I studied a little bit of economics at Ohio State as navy ROTC midshipman. I like market forces. I like trying to harness market forces and make them work. You came up with a good idea in 1993, and I just wish to heck that you would work with us to try to make sure that those good ideas have a chance of working. And the reason why the marketplaces are failing in places, like you mentioned Ohio in your statement, Mr. Chairman, the reason why they’re not working, we’ve basically undermined the individual mandate so that people will know if they really have to get coverage. Young people aren’t. We’ve taken off the training wheels, so to stabilize the marketplaces and insurance companies. They lost their shirts in 2014 because of it. They lost less money in 2015. Got better. They raised their premiums, they raised their copays, they raised their deductibles, and they did better in it. And tells that rather than the marketplaces being a death spiral at the end of 2016, they’re actually recovering, until a new administration came in and said, well, we’re not sure if we’re going to enforce the individual mandate, and, by the way, we don’t know for sure whether they’re going to extend the cost-sharing arrangements. That provides unpredictable lack of certainty for the insurance companies. What do they do? They say, we’re going to raise our premiums more. What you’re destabilizing, the very idea that these guys came up with 24 years ago. Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT): Well, if I could just interrupt for a second. Those were ideas that were against—it was part of the anti-Hillary care bill, and it— Carper: They were good ideas. Tom Price: Well— Carper: And I commend you for them. If my life depended on telling what Hillary care did, I couldn’t tell you. But I know what your bill did, and, frankly, there were good ideas, and now we’re undermining undercutting them. Why? Dr. Price, why? Price: Senator, I appreciate the observation. I would add to that that there are significant challenges out there, and there were so before this administration started. In your state alone, premiums were up 108% before this administration started. In your state alone, there were fewer insurance companies offering coverage on the exchange before this administration started. So what we’re trying to do is to address especially that individual and small-group market that is seeing significant increases in premiums, increases in deduct— Carper: What are you doing? What are you doing to doing? How are you stabilizing the marketplaces? Price: Well, we— Carper: Just give us some ideas. The three Rs. What are you doing on those? Reinsurance, risk adjustment, risk corridors. What are you doing there? Price: We passed it—or we put in place a market-stabilization rule earlier this year that identified the special enrollment periods and the grace periods to make certain that they were more workable for both individuals and for insurance companies. We allowed the states greater flexibility in determining what a qualified health plan was, to try to provide greater stability for the market. We put out word to all governors across this nation on both 1115 and 1332 waivers and suggestions regarding what they can do to allow for greater market stabilization in their states, and we look forward to working with you and other senators to try to make certain that all those individuals, not just in the individual and small-group market but every single American has the opportunity to gain access to the kind of coverage that works for them and their families. Sen. Mazie Hirono designated February 3rd as "National Wear Red Day." This is what she wore. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

Prof. Timothy Jost is an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Managing Editor of the Journal. T.S. Jost and S. Lazarus. Trump’s Executive Order on Health Care - Can It Undermine the ACA if Congress Fails to Act? N Engl J Med 2017;376:1201-3.

Prof. Timothy Jost is a professor of law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Managing Editor of the Journal. T.S. Jost. The House and the ACA - A Lawsuit over Cost-Sharing Reductions. N Engl J Med 2016;374:5-7.

DFA Senior Advisor and University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack talks with two of the Nation's leading experts on health reform: Professor Timothy Jost, and Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution. They discussed the implications of the King v. Burwell victory and the future challenges and strategies for improving the Nation’s health care. A full audio recording of the call is available here. Guest Speakers: Timothy JostTimothy Jost holds the Robert L. Willett Family Professorship of Law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. He is a co-author of a casebook,Health Law, used widely throughout the United States in teaching health law, and of a treatise and hornbook by the same name. He is also the author of HealthCare Coverage Determinations: An International Comparative Study; Disentitlement? The Threats Facing our Public Health Care Programs and a Rights-Based Response; and Readings in Comparative Health Law and Bioethics, the second edition of which appeared this spring. He has also written numerous articles and book chapters on health care regulation and comparative health law and policy, and has lectured on health law topics throughout the world. His most recent book is Health Care at Risk: A Critique of the Consumer-Driven Movement, which was published by Duke University Press in 2007. Henry J. AaronHenry J. Aaron is currently the Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution. From 1990 through 1996 he was the director of the Economic Studies program.  He is a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the advisory committee of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the visiting committee of the Harvard Medical School. He is a member of the board of directors of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He was a founding member, vice president, and chair of the board of the National Academy of Social Insurance. He has been vice president and member of the executive committee of the American Economic Association and was president of the Association of Public Policy and Management. He has been a member of the boards of directors of the College Retirement Equity Fund and Georgetown University.

DFA Senior Advisor and University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack talks with two of the Nation's leading experts on health reform: Professor Timothy Jost, and Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution. They discussed the implications of the King v. Burwell victory and the future challenges and strategies for improving the Nation’s health care. A full audio recording of the call is available here. Guest Speakers: Timothy JostTimothy Jost holds the Robert L. Willett Family Professorship of Law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. He is a co-author of a casebook,Health Law, used widely throughout the United States in teaching health law, and of a treatise and hornbook by the same name. He is also the author of HealthCare Coverage Determinations: An International Comparative Study; Disentitlement? The Threats Facing our Public Health Care Programs and a Rights-Based Response; and Readings in Comparative Health Law and Bioethics, the second edition of which appeared this spring. He has also written numerous articles and book chapters on health care regulation and comparative health law and policy, and has lectured on health law topics throughout the world. His most recent book is Health Care at Risk: A Critique of the Consumer-Driven Movement, which was published by Duke University Press in 2007. Henry J. AaronHenry J. Aaron is currently the Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution. From 1990 through 1996 he was the director of the Economic Studies program.  He is a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the advisory committee of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the visiting committee of the Harvard Medical School. He is a member of the board of directors of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He was a founding member, vice president, and chair of the board of the National Academy of Social Insurance. He has been vice president and member of the executive committee of the American Economic Association and was president of the Association of Public Policy and Management. He has been a member of the boards of directors of the College Retirement Equity Fund and Georgetown University.

Reading by Timothy Jost, JD, author of An Affordable Care Act at Year 5: Key Issues for Improvement

University of Virginia School of Law professor Mimi Riley and Timothy Jost from Washington and Lee University School of Law discussed the Supreme Court case challenging Obamacare, King v. Burwell, and the future of the Affordable Care Act. The Health Law Association sponsored the event at UVA Law on March 23.

Timothy Jost is a law professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. He is a co-author of a casebook that is used widely throughout the United States in teaching health law. He also is the author of several other key publications, including Readings in Comparative Health Law and Bioethics, along with another book entitled Health Care at Risk: A Critique of the Consumer-Driven Movement. He has written numerous articles and book chapters on health care regulation and comparative health law and policy, and has lectured on health law topics throughout the world. One of his most recent articles was published in April of this year in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Obama's Affordable Care Act Delays – Breaking the Law or Making it Work?” which discusses the legality of the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act implementation postponements. Professor Jost is a frequent contributor to the highly influential Health Affairs Blog regarding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and he obtained his law degree with honors from the University of Chicago.

Supreme Court Decision: What It Means and What's Ahead for Health Reform  Harold Pollack hosts an all-star team of policy experts - Henry Aaron, Jonathan Gruber, Timothy Jost, Mark Peterson - who share their insights and reactions to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. Henry Aaron is the Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has served as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has been vice president and member of the executive committee of the American Economic Association and was president of the Association of Public Policy and Management.     Jonathan Gruber is Professor of Economics at MIT. A member of the Institute of Medicine, he was awarded the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the Best Health Economist in the Nation aged 40 and under. Dr. Gruber was a principal architect of the Massachusetts health reform (“Romneycare”) and later the Affordable Care Act.     Timothy S. Jost holds the Robert L. Willett Family Professorship of Law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. A regular contributor to the Health Affairs blog and an elected member of the Institute of Medicine, he is the author of numerous books and articles regarding legal and implementation issues in health reform.     Mark Peterson is Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, and Law at UCLA. He is a founding team member of the UCLA-based multidisciplinary Blue Sky Health Initiative to transform the U.S. health and health care system, which has helped advise Congress on the inclusion of disease prevention and health promotion strategies in the current health care reform legislation.  Previously, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow, he served as a Legislative Assistant for Health Policy in the Office of U.S. Senator Tom Daschle.  During 2000-2003 he was on the Study Panel on Medicare and Markets organized by the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Guest: Timothy Jost Host: Bruce Japsen Consumer groups for decades have criticized and wondered how much money health insurance companies actually spend on medical care. Under the health care reform law, they will actually come closer to knowing thanks to the so-called medical-loss ratio provisions of the legislation. Host Bruce Japsen talks with Washington and Lee University School of Law health reform expert Timothy Jost about the impact medical-loss ratio rules will have on physicians and their patients.