The political seas roiled by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have grown more volatile in the 2 years since its passage. Whether it is the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, the economic feasibility of the Medicaid expansion, or controversy over the ...

Having expanded insurance coverage to 98% of its population, Massachusetts seeks to control health care costs. A new bill includes global payment arrangements, accountable care organizations, malpractice reform, and authority to strike down insurance-premium increases.

Supreme Court oral arguments may reveal the justices' views of fundamental political and social issues — including, in the case of the Affordable Care Act, what it means to ensure liberty and where the proper balance lies between judicial activism and deference to Congress.

Opponents of the new federal policy regarding insurance coverage of contraception have reframed it as discrimination against religion. But the controversy is fundamentally about our multicultural society's cross-subsidization of the varied choices of its citizens.

If the Supreme Court deems the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate unconstitutional, it will consider whether to invalidate other ACA provisions because the mandate cannot be “severed” from them. The ACA's fate may therefore depend on the mandate's severability.

A key question about aggregating payments to health care providers is determining whether to bundle services for individual, if extended, episodes of care or for whole patients. What are the tradeoffs of the two approaches, and how much money could be saved?

The idea of a premium-support system for Medicare dates from 1995, but current proposals do not contain appropriate safeguards, and the circumstances of the U.S. health care system have changed in ways that would make the approach unwise today.

Under the Wyden–Ryan proposal, instead of guaranteeing to pay for services as they are rendered, Medicare would give beneficiaries a subsidy to purchase coverage from one of multiple health plans, which would compete by providing necessary services cost-effectively.

A medical student working at health fairs and clinics in underserved communities spends his time asking people what their lives are like — but can't truly empathize until his own father loses his job and his health insurance.

Giving states the right to determine their own essential health benefits is politically savvy. But will it mean shoddy health care for some and top-of-the-line health care for others? And what if variations in quality lead to disability, dysfunction, or premature death?

In December, it was announced that rather than the federal government's defining a single set of essential health benefits, each state will choose from among 10 options. This decision is sound public policy and capitalizes on the strengths of American federalism.

The Supreme Court has promised to review not only the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate but also the issue, raised by Florida and 25 other states, of whether the ACA's Medicaid expansion violates the U.S. Constitution.

Medicaid programs are experiencing turbulence and imposing more spending cuts, most commonly through provider-payment reductions. Simultaneously, many are expanding their contracts with managed-care plans and preparing for health care reform's coverage expansion.

Those who have legally challenged the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to obtain health insurance argue that Congress cannot regulate “inactivity.” But Congress does in fact have the power to force purchases.

Under health care reform, changes in income, employment, and family composition may result in “churning” — shifting of people into and out of different insurance-coverage arrangements over time. How will a state's adoption of a Basic Health Program affect churning?

Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, numerous lawsuits have been filed arguing that the federal mandate that individuals obtain health insurance is unconstitutional. Three appeals courts have issued mixed rulings, and the matter will probably ...

The Institute of Medicine has recommended that the “essential health benefits” offered under the Affordable Care Act be equivalent in scope to an average small-business plan and “should become more fully evidence-based, specific, and value-promoting over time.”