—
Patients, insurance companies, doctors and hospital administrators now know with a high degree of certainty what changes will be coming to America’s health-care industry following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
Almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, legal challenges arose with 26 states, several individuals and the NFIB eventually filing suits in federal court.
The high court did not hear a case on the issue until March 26-28. The two-year gap was filled with uncertainty about what parts of the act – if any – would be left in place.
On Thursday, the court voted 5-4 to uphold the act, including the controversial requirement that almost all citizens must obtain health insurance.
Now, with the law’s constitutionality confirmed, medical professionals and patients have a firmer understanding of what the nation’s health-care structure will be like.
“With the clarity of the decision, hospitals can begin preparing for the Affordable Care Act,” said John Moryken, Conemaugh Health System’s vice president for business development and government affairs.
Vik Mangalmurti, vice president for health-care reform for the Pittsburgh-based insurance company Highmark, expressed similar feelings.
“It’s good to have some level of clarity going forward,” he said.
Later this year, a value-based purchasing program in Original Medicare will be put into place, offering financial incentives for hospitals to improve their quality of care, according to healthcare.gov.
The law will eventually deliver new federal funding for preventive care through states, continued Children’s Health Insurance Program spending and increased Medicaid access for Americans who earn less than 133 percent of the poverty level. Affordable insurance exchanges will start on Jan. 1, 2014, for individuals who cannot obtain insurance through their employers. Beginning on the same day, insurance companies no longer will be able to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions or limit annual coverage.
“Major kudos to a branch of government for stepping up and doing the moral, right and progressive thing,” said Matthew Masiello, director of The Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Windber Research Institute.
“Most of where we have gone with health-care reform is comparable to where other countries had started going 20, 30 years ago. ... We can at least say now that we are on the way to providing better health care for people,” Masiello said.
Moryken and Mangalmurti offered more muted responses to the court ruling than Masiello did. Mangalmurti said that, “We take it for what it is. We will comply with the law.”
Moryken simply described Conemaugh’s goal as “always providing the highest quality health care.”
Steven Shapiro, chief medical and scientific officer for UPMC, a major western Pennsylvania health insurance provider, described his company’s reaction to the decision by saying, “(Thursday’s) ruling reinforces UPMC’s current strategy: We are the acknowledged leaders in creating new models of care that will provide higher quality at affordable costs. We know that the current model of care delivery in this country is unsustainable. UPMC, with its integrated system of doctors, hospitals and health plan and backed by academic research, is uniquely positioned to address this challenge.”
Click here to subscribe to The Tribune-Democrat print edition.
Click here to subscribe to The Tribune-Democrat e-edition.



