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
Government Files Response In Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments Suit, Lays Out Tough Standards For Iowa Waiver
On October 20, the federal government responded to the plaintiff states’ motion in California v. Trump for a TRO and injunction against the decision to cease cost-sharing reduction payments. The day before, CMS sent a letter responding to Iowa’s request for a 1332 state innovation waiver.
Oregon’s newly approved 1332 waiver proposal is the fourth such waiver proposal CMS has approved and the third proposal involving a reinsurance program. Oregon will reinsure 50 percent of claims, in excess of an attachment point to be determined, up to $1 million.
October 19, 2017 | Following the ACA
Quoting from President Trump’s tweets, the states argue that his termination of CSR payments was “arbitrary and capricious” and thus violated the Administrative Procedures Act. They also say the president violated his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
In states that allowed insurers to assume CSR payments would be cancelled, rather than require insurers to refile rates, delaying open enrollment, the Alexander-Murray proposal would leave increased rates in place but require insurers to rebate overpayments to enrollees and the federal government.
We don’t yet have final bill text or a CBO score, but in today’s announcement from Senators Alexander and Murray we have some details on policies that should help stabilize consumer access and premiums in the individual market in the next few years.
The effects of President Trump’s October 12 actions regarding the Affordable Care Act will hinge largely on state responses to the cessation of cost-sharing reduction payments and the outcome of legal challenges, notably from attorneys general in eighteen states and the District of Columbia.
Ending cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers is another sign that President Trump is doing what he can to undermine the stability of the individual market under the ACA. This action will have a much more immediate impact than the measures Trump announced in yesterday’s executive order.
On October 12, President Trump issued an executive order concerning health care coverage. If carried out, the order’s provisions would likely siphon healthy people from the ACA-compliant market, continuing a pattern of regulatory actions under the Trump administration that have undermined the ACA.
CMS has reminded QHPs to 1) not seek tax credits or cost-sharing reduction reimbursement for non-Hyde abortion coverage; 2) provide an annual notice regarding coverage of non-Hyde abortions; and 3) charge and collect no less than $1 per enrollee per month for coverage of non-Hyde abortion services.
Trump Administration Regulatory Rebalancing Favors Religious And Moral Freedom Over Contraceptive Access
The Obama administration asserted a compelling interest in women having seamless access to contraceptives through their health plans. The Trump administration sees no compelling interest in access to contraceptives through employers that object to such coverage for religious or moral reasons.