Current Health Law Efforts

Regulation & Policy in Health. Discussion 2
Current Health Law Efforts
Health law is constantly changing and morphing due to the efforts of interested parties or stakeholders. Some of the proposed changes benefit citizens while others appear only to further the interests of corporations. It is important to understand the influence of politics, for example, on policy. For this assignment, you will have the opportunity to explore current news items related to health law and policy.
Task: From the Internet, review the following:
Kaiser Health News. (n.d.). The Health Law. Retrieved from https://khn.org/topics/the-health-law/
Choose a current news item of interest(Please pick this current news item (https://khn.org/news/article/record-number-of-americans-sign-up-for-aca-health-insurance/) and include the following information in your writing:

Health policy discussed
Invested parties
Potential pros and cons of recommended change
To support your work, use your course and textbook readings and also use online library resources.
As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format.

Reading material to help support your writing
Process of Health Policy Making: Framework and Implementation
There can be several approaches to the policy making process, and they could be subjective. It is best to set up a framework for policy making in order to give it structure. Stages Heuristic is a rather oversimplified framework that divides policy process into stages: agenda setting, formulation, implementation, and evaluation. However, it is useful for understanding the policy making process. Other frameworks include policy triangle framework and the networks framework that explain the role of actors and their interactions in producing a policy.
Formulation of health policy involves the crucial initial step of agenda setting, which is the process of identifying problems and possible solutions and the impacts on various constituents. The next step is the development of legislation, which occurs at a point where problems, potential solutions, and political circumstances converge to form a window of opportunity. The implementation of policy succeeds the enactment of legislation. Implementation is carried out by departments and agencies within the executive branches of the federal and state governments. It is their responsibility to be effectual in order to make a measurable impact on the determinants of health. The agencies should be equipped to manage human, financial, and other resources well enough to facilitate objectives embodied in the legislation.
This can be a tremendous management undertaking, which involves designing a working agenda for enforcing agencies and drafting a plan of action in order to perform the work. Specific and detailed directives or rules need to be developed to facilitate implementation. Of course, all these will be futile without agencies undertaking the operation of enacted legislation. For example, in the case of Affordable Care Act (ACA), expanding Medicaid enrollment involves the operational stage of successfully enrolling new people into the program. Lastly, evaluation of the merit of the policy is a core activity while implementing policy.
Frameworks for Policy Making
The Role of Courts in Health Policy Making
The judiciary is one of the three coequal branches of the government, each with its own responsibilities and authority. The US constitutional structure intends the judicial branch to play a less direct part in policy making. However, an examination of decisions rendered by the courts indicates that judicial decisions can affect health policy to a great extent. The federal courts have legal authority over certain types of cases that may involve the federal Constitution or statute. They also may be involved in cases that have parties residing in different states. Courts in the U.S. have traditionally acted as constitutional referees, making decisions about the scope of each branch’s reach.
When the Congress’ authority to enforce individual mandate via the ACA was challenged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB v. Sibelius as cited in Longest, 2016), the Supreme Court acted as the referee. Courts also act as meaning givers when they interpret laws that may be particularly unclear in specific circumstances. For example, in 2003, in Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, the Supreme Court interpreted the savings clause and ruled to permit health plans to permit any willing provider to join their networks.
Furthermore, the courts act as rights enforcers when parties allege violation of their constitutional rights in the context of evolving social conditions. For example, in 2012, a federal circuit court of appeals upheld Congress’ authority to require graphic warnings (Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States as cited in Longest, 2016). However, another circuit court of appeals in the same year (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA as cited in Longest, 2016) found that compelling tobacco companies to include the images actually chosen by the FDA on their cigarette packages would violate the companies’ First Amendment rights. It must be noted that these three roles of the courts are not mutually exclusive. In the context of health policy, the judiciary impacts both public and private sectors. For example, until the implementation of the ACA, employers had complete discretion on insurance provision to their employees and the types of benefits provided.
The Supreme Court of the United States
Courts in the U.S. have traditionally acted as constitutional referees, making decisions about the scope of each branch’s reach. Courts also act as meaning givers when they interpret laws that may be particularly unclear in specific circumstances. Following are some important cases in which the judiciary branch of the U.S. government played a key role.