Browse

This volume is the product of a joint conference of the University of Chicago Law School and Medical School on health reform that was convened after NFIB v. Sebelius was decided. An interdisciplinary group of experts—economists, lawyers, health care professionals—discussed the meaning of the case, its impact on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the question of health care reform. The authors of this volume shed some light on a set of key issues that inform current health care policy in the United States, the recent health care reform legislation, and future avenues of reform. The first section of the book deals with legal challenges to the ACA and the way the Supreme Court's decision shaped the contours of the law's implementation. The authors discuss the case overall and in a jurisprudential and administrative law context, as well implications for the future. The second section discusses the fiscal consequences of the ACA from both economic and accounting perspectives. The third section presents cases for and against the ACA and discusses inefficiencies in the market and payment reform. The fourth section deals with health care technology and examines the cost-effectiveness of various technologies and the complex relationship between health insurance expansions and new medical technologies. The final section focuses on the new health insurance exchanges and presents two opposing views on whether there are significant search frictions when individuals shop for health insurance contracts and whether the ACA will promote efficiency or forestall innovation.

It has been said that how a society treats its least well-off members speaks volumes about its humanity. If so, treatment of the mentally ill suggests that American society is inhumane: swinging between overintervention and utter neglect, we sometimes force extreme treatments on those who do not want them, and at other times discharge mentally ill patients who do want treatment without providing adequate resources for their care in the community. Focusing on overinterventionist approaches, this book explores when, if ever, the mentally ill should be treated against their will. Basing the analysis on case and empirical studies, the book explores dilemmas raised by forced treatment in three contexts–civil commitment (forced hospitalization for noncriminals), medication, and seclusion and restraints. It argues that the best way to solve each of these dilemmas is, paradoxically, to be both more protective of individual autonomy and more paternalistic than current law calls for. For instance, while the book advocates relaxing the standards for first commitment after a psychotic episode, it also would prohibit extreme mechanical restraints (such as tying someone spread-eagled to a bed). Finally, because of the often extreme prejudice against the mentally ill in American society, the book proposes standards that, as much as possible, should apply equally to non-mentally ill and mentally ill people alike.