How Supreme Court Decisions Could Affect Older Americans AARP Bulletin
How Supreme Court Decisions Could Affect Older Americans - AARP Bulletin
Legality of the health care law The court has not yet agreed to hear one of the challenges to the making their way through the courts, but five federal appellate courts have issued contradictory decisions. The high court will need to settle the matter. The court could grant review in from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the so-called individual mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The court could also choose a more prominent case, namely Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from the 11th Circuit, which held the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The Obama administration signaled Sept. 26 that it wants to move this case along when it didn't ask for another review by the 11th Circuit, increasing the chances the Supreme Court could get the case more quickly. Florida v. HHS was brought by mostly Republican attorneys general and governors in 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals. The court received petitions for review on Sept. 28 from the state officials, the NFIB and the Obama administration. A central issue is whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority with the individual mandate. The law also greatly expands Medicaid and contains measures to help older people rather than in institutions. If the court accepts a case by January, it is expected to rule by the end of the term in June 2012 — right in the middle of the presidential and congressional campaign season. Next:
Medicaid reimbursement The court has scheduled oral arguments on opening day in a consolidated appeal of several cases involving Medicaid reimbursement. The question is whether health care providers and Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to sue a state over cuts in the reimbursement rates for health care providers. The issue may sound technical, but Douglas v. Independent Living Center has major implications for poor people who receive health care through Medicaid and for Thirty states have joined California in arguing that the providers and patients should not have the right to sue. The states claim it would be a "financial catastrophe" to be forced to comply with federal law blocking the reimbursement cuts. In 2008, the California legislature approved a 10 percent cut in reimbursements for dentists, health clinics, pharmacists and other providers. Several provider groups sued, saying the lower rates would hurt patients. Some pharmacies, for example, refused to dispense drugs below cost. When federal courts blocked the cuts from taking effect, California appealed to the Supreme Court. "The impact is very significant. States could pass laws that ignore federal requirements in Medicaid," said Rochelle Bobroff, directing attorney of the National Senior Citizens Law Center's Federal Rights Project. "It's very, very disturbing." A consumer's day in court In CompuCredit v. Greenwood, the question is whether a business that provides consumers with a "you have a right to sue" notice under the Credit Repair Organizations Act actually has to let consumers go to court — or if arbitration is a good enough substitute. CompuCredit Corp. marketed a it said would help rebuild a customer's credit. Consumers supposedly could get the card free but first were charged $257 in fees, which was mentioned in small print. Wanda Greenwood and other plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in California alleging the company violated the credit repair law, which gives consumers a right to sue. The company tried to compel arbitration instead. Greenwood and others filed an appeal, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with them. CompuCredit appealed to the Supreme Court. Consumers need their day in court, says Bobroff, whose law center joined AARP in filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of consumers. "Arbitration doesn't provide the same protection as a judge and jury," she said. The risk to older people is great because without active income, seniors often have trouble restoring their credit. This can lead to and other problems, she said. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 11. Next:
The First Amendment protects published statements about the conduct of public officials, even if they are false, except when made with actual malice.
Police must inform citizens accused of a crime their rights to "due process," including the right to remain silent and have an attorney present.
The Court said the Nixon Administration did not make its case to overcome prior restraint of the press and allowed the New York Times and The Washington Post to publish what became known as the "Pentagon Papers."
A woman has a right to have an abortion within the first trimester.
The court said President Richard Nixon could not use "executive privilege" to prevent releasing audio tapes of conversations recorded in the Oval Office in connection with the Watergate affair.
The case resolved the 2000 presidential election.
Cancel You are leaving AARP.org and going to the website of our trusted provider. The provider’s terms, conditions and policies apply. Please return to AARP.org to learn more about other benefits. Your email address is now confirmed. You'll start receiving the latest news, benefits, events, and programs related to AARP's mission to empower people to choose how they live as they age. You can also by updating your account at anytime. You will be asked to register or log in. Cancel Offer Details Disclosures
Your 2011-12 Guide to Key U S Supreme Court Cases
Health reform Medicaid consumer rights and more
The new term of the U.S. Supreme Court, which begins today, could be a blockbuster, with the court likely taking up See also: Photo by Getty Images; Jose Fuste Raga/Corbis The high court will decide issues relevant to older adults. "This issue may precipitate the most important clash between the court and the executive branch since the New Deal," according to an AARP Foundation Litigation analysis. "The court's opinion may impact jurisprudence and the direction of this country for decades to come." The court has accepted a little more than half the cases it will hear during the term. On the docket so far are cases involving Medicaid, consumer credit rights, biomedical patents and other topics with special significance for people 50-plus.Related
Legality of the health care law The court has not yet agreed to hear one of the challenges to the making their way through the courts, but five federal appellate courts have issued contradictory decisions. The high court will need to settle the matter. The court could grant review in from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the so-called individual mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The court could also choose a more prominent case, namely Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from the 11th Circuit, which held the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The Obama administration signaled Sept. 26 that it wants to move this case along when it didn't ask for another review by the 11th Circuit, increasing the chances the Supreme Court could get the case more quickly. Florida v. HHS was brought by mostly Republican attorneys general and governors in 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals. The court received petitions for review on Sept. 28 from the state officials, the NFIB and the Obama administration. A central issue is whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority with the individual mandate. The law also greatly expands Medicaid and contains measures to help older people rather than in institutions. If the court accepts a case by January, it is expected to rule by the end of the term in June 2012 — right in the middle of the presidential and congressional campaign season. Next:
Medicaid reimbursement The court has scheduled oral arguments on opening day in a consolidated appeal of several cases involving Medicaid reimbursement. The question is whether health care providers and Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to sue a state over cuts in the reimbursement rates for health care providers. The issue may sound technical, but Douglas v. Independent Living Center has major implications for poor people who receive health care through Medicaid and for Thirty states have joined California in arguing that the providers and patients should not have the right to sue. The states claim it would be a "financial catastrophe" to be forced to comply with federal law blocking the reimbursement cuts. In 2008, the California legislature approved a 10 percent cut in reimbursements for dentists, health clinics, pharmacists and other providers. Several provider groups sued, saying the lower rates would hurt patients. Some pharmacies, for example, refused to dispense drugs below cost. When federal courts blocked the cuts from taking effect, California appealed to the Supreme Court. "The impact is very significant. States could pass laws that ignore federal requirements in Medicaid," said Rochelle Bobroff, directing attorney of the National Senior Citizens Law Center's Federal Rights Project. "It's very, very disturbing." A consumer's day in court In CompuCredit v. Greenwood, the question is whether a business that provides consumers with a "you have a right to sue" notice under the Credit Repair Organizations Act actually has to let consumers go to court — or if arbitration is a good enough substitute. CompuCredit Corp. marketed a it said would help rebuild a customer's credit. Consumers supposedly could get the card free but first were charged $257 in fees, which was mentioned in small print. Wanda Greenwood and other plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in California alleging the company violated the credit repair law, which gives consumers a right to sue. The company tried to compel arbitration instead. Greenwood and others filed an appeal, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with them. CompuCredit appealed to the Supreme Court. Consumers need their day in court, says Bobroff, whose law center joined AARP in filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of consumers. "Arbitration doesn't provide the same protection as a judge and jury," she said. The risk to older people is great because without active income, seniors often have trouble restoring their credit. This can lead to and other problems, she said. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 11. Next:
Related
Drug safety tests The court will hear arguments Dec. 7 in a closely watched biomedical patent case, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. Prometheus developed a method to analyze blood tests to determine how a patient is reacting to certain amounts of a drug. They hold two patents, and when Mayo, a for-profit division of the Mayo Clinic, developed a test that also measured a patient's reaction to dose levels, Prometheus filed a patent infringement suit. Mayo claims that no patent should cover a doctor's observations on how a patient reacts to certain dosages of medicine, which they describe as a "natural phenomenon," and patenting the process would stifle normal medical practice. "No one may seek or get a patent based on a law of nature, so if an apple fell on your head and you wanted to patent a law of gravity, you are out of luck," said attorney Miguel A. Estrada, a former assistant to the solicitor general who argued the case previously before the court. This is the Supreme Court's second crack at the issues, after remanding the case back to federal circuit court. AARP is among groups that have weighed in on the case, urging the court to rule that the tests are not patentable. Marsha Mercer is a freelance writer who covers public policy issues. She is based in Virginia.Oral Arguments From Famous Supreme Court Cases
The First Amendment protects published statements about the conduct of public officials, even if they are false, except when made with actual malice.
Police must inform citizens accused of a crime their rights to "due process," including the right to remain silent and have an attorney present.
The Court said the Nixon Administration did not make its case to overcome prior restraint of the press and allowed the New York Times and The Washington Post to publish what became known as the "Pentagon Papers."
A woman has a right to have an abortion within the first trimester.
The court said President Richard Nixon could not use "executive privilege" to prevent releasing audio tapes of conversations recorded in the Oval Office in connection with the Watergate affair.
The case resolved the 2000 presidential election.
Cancel You are leaving AARP.org and going to the website of our trusted provider. The provider’s terms, conditions and policies apply. Please return to AARP.org to learn more about other benefits. Your email address is now confirmed. You'll start receiving the latest news, benefits, events, and programs related to AARP's mission to empower people to choose how they live as they age. You can also by updating your account at anytime. You will be asked to register or log in. Cancel Offer Details Disclosures