Eventually, (who knows when), Congress will decide if they want to support Obama's health care reform law aka the Affordable Care Act.
This act, requires all individuals to purchase insurance, and if they choose not to, they will have to face a penalty. Congress addressed in 2010, that billions of dollars were being uncompensated to the uninsured, raising the average premiums of the actual insured. Currently, this individual mandate is being contended if it is part of Congress' taxing power.
This Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, simply states the act blocks lawsuits over taxes that haven't been implemented yet. So, the banter was that if this penalty, that individuals are to be mandated to pay if they choose to not have insurance, would be a "tax." Justine Ginsberg argued that this penalty isn't meant to be revenue-raising, so could it be a tax?
Additionally, the states find that the requirement of this Act is unconstitutional, as they feel coerced into doing what the federal government wants. However, there are benefits- over 30 new insurance protections, 73% of young adults now have coverage, four million seniors have saved billions of dollars in prescription coverage since 2011.
Which brings us to our more implied question: how does this ruling affect pharmacy? With cuts in reimbursements for hospitals, it provides the pharmacist a role to prevent re-admissions.
But essentially, with the possible fact this might be a
mandate, will the people of this country go against this, and doesn't this have the opposite effect on the intention of Obamacare?
With business penalities actually going to be
less than the coverage, how will businesses choose? A survey done by
McKinsey & Co. actually stated that 30% of employers will drop their health care coverage once this Act is put into place. How will this affect current healthcare, and specifically, pharmacy?
Aren't we dealing enough with all the current drug shortages? Only time will tell....