Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, J.D., is an Emeritus Professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Jost is a member of the Institute of Medicine and a consumer liaison representative to the National Association of Insurance Commissioner. He is coauthor 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 Health Care at Risk: A Critique of the Consumer-Driven Movement; Health Care 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.

Jost is a contributing editor at Health Affairs and a frequent contributor to Health Affairs Blog. He has also written numerous articles and book chapters on health care regulation and comparative health law, including monographs on legal issues in health care reform for Georgetown’s O’Neill Center, the Fresh Thinking Project, the National Academy of Social Insurance and National Academy of Public Administration, and the New America Foundation and Urban Institute.

Recent Posts by Timothy Jost

Senate Parliamentarian Rules Several BCRA Provisions Violate The Byrd Rule

The striking of the overruled provisions is going to make the Republican leadership’s job, which was already very difficult, that much harder.

The Latest CBO Score Of The Better Care Reconciliation Act Leaves 22 Million Uninsured by 2026 (Update)

The latest version of the BCRA is basically identical to the July 13 version except that it drops the Cruz amendment and includes a couple of small changes in the Medicaid section.

CMS Releases FAQ On Its New Proxy Direct Enrollment Pathway

On July 18, CMS released at its REGTAP.info website a series of frequently asked questions regarding the Third Party Operational Readiness Reviews for the Proxy Direct Enrollment Pathway.

July 20, 2017Following the ACA

The Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act: What Repeal And Delay Would Mean For Coverage, Premiums, And The Budget

The main difference between the ORRA and the 2015 reconciliation bill is that the effective dates are two years later. The CBO estimates that the bill would increase the number of uninsured by 17 million by next year.

Republican ACA Replacement Effort Collapses; States Defend House v. Price Intervention Request

On July 17, GOP efforts to pass an ACA replacement collapsed as Sens. Mike Lee (UT) and Jerry Moran (KS) said they would oppose the bill. On the same day, attorneys general from 17 states filed a brief in support of their motion to intervene in House v. Price.

ACA Round-Up: Medicare Trustees Report Does Not Trigger IPAB, And More

All eyes yesterday were focused on the Senate, which released significant new amendments to the Better Care Reconciliation Act. But the Senate was not the only game in town.

Senate GOP Leadership Unveils Latest Version Of Health Reform Legislation

On July 13, 2017, Senate GOP leaders released an amended version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which would allow insurers to offer bare-bones plans. This post addresses the private insurance sections of the amendment. A subsequent post by Sara Rosenbaum will discuss Medicaid changes.

ACA Round-Up: CMS Approves Alaska 1332 Reinsurance Waiver, Ceases Premium Outlier Reviews

On July 11, CMS announced approval of Alaska’s state innovation waiver application for its reinsurance program. Another reinsurance program 1332 waiver application is pending from Minnesota and more are expected. Alaska’s 1332 waiver approval follow’s Hawaii’s successful application last year.

House, Administration Oppose State Intervention In House v. Price; New Developments In ACA Section 1557 Case

The House and HHS have opposed the motion by 18 state attorneys general to intervene in the government’s appeal of House v. Price. Also, there are two new decisions in the challenge to protections against discrimination because of gender identity and termination of pregnancy under ACA Section 1557.

Is There Justification For The Contraceptive Rule To Go Into Effect Immediately Upon Issuance?

OMB is reviewing an interim final rule on accommodations for entities objecting to giving workers access to contraceptives without cost sharing. Notice and public comment may be skipped only when they are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Does this rule meet the test?

July 7, 2017Following the ACA