Nicole Huberfeld

Argues that the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic could significantly weaken patients’ and physicians’ ability to challenge unlawful state interference in health care through federal courts. The authors explain that, for decades, lawsuits under Section 1983 allowed Medicaid patients, clinicians, and health organizations to enforce federal protections when states violated health care laws. They contend that the Medina ruling sharply narrows who can sue by requiring federal statutes to explicitly use rights-creating language, potentially making many Medicaid protections unenforceable.

Warns that a 2025 executive order issued by President Trump could improperly expand federal power over artificial intelligence regulation by attempting to block states from regulating medical AI without clear congressional authorization. The authors explain that medical AI is rapidly becoming embedded in clinical care while federal oversight remains limited, prompting states to adopt their own patient-protection laws governing disclosure, discrimination, and accountability. They argue that the executive order relies on an aggressive interpretation of “preemption,” the legal doctrine that allows federal law to override state law, even though presidents cannot independently create preemptive federal policy without Congress.

Examines how the post-Dobbs legal landscape has created growing uncertainty for physicians providing telehealth care across state lines, particularly for abortion and reproductive health services. The authors explain that conflicting state laws and the threat of civil or criminal penalties have increased legal risks for clinicians treating patients remotely in states with abortion restrictions.

Examines the impact of the US Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) in 2022, which eliminated federal constitutional protection for abortion access. They discuss how abortion restrictions affect patients with cancer and cancer care delivery; describe how Dobbs affects the health system and workforce; and discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications of overturning Roe v Wade. 

Discusses the end of the federal COVID-19 public health emergency which marked the conclusion of significant federal healthcare support for states and individuals. Notes that despite economic crises typically leading to declines in health insurance coverage, the federal response to the COVID-19 health and economic crises included novel policies aimed at maintaining continuous enrollment in Medicaid and enhancing Marketplace subsidies to help people stay insured. Suggests that the United States can prepare for future crises by automating implementation of policies that helped maintain insurance coverage during COVID-19.

Discusses the governance structure of healthcare in the United States, highlighting federalism's role in dividing responsibilities between the federal and state governments. Evaluates the atypical federal pandemic response, where the executive branch rejected centralized responsibility, and the varied state responses, some of which prioritized politics over health.

Analyzes the US Supreme Court litigation in Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski following oral arguments. Discusses the theory argued by the state-run institution accused of violating patient rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, which could disrupt federally funded social programs. Notes that the case's outcome could impact the accountability of nursing homes for substandard care and the stability of federal spending programs.

Examines how recent action at the state level, specifically placing work requirements for people to access Medicaid coverage, differ from the historical path of Medicaid. Finds Medicaid has historically been expanded to cover more groups of people, most recently in the Obama administration, where states applied for waivers to expand coverage to people that were not previously eligible. Notes that Stewart v. Azar shows state efforts to do the opposite- impose restrictions and limit access to Medicaid.

Finds obstacles in rural areas, such as small patient populations and low levels of health insurance, have led to hospital closures and worse health outcomes. Notes that programs like Affordable Care Act attempted to address these issues, as increasing insurance rates help individuals access care and keep rural hospitals financially stable. Notes some rural states have rejected the ACA, but their replacement choices targeting these communities appear to be less effective.

Finds the Affordable Care Act has led to complex interactions between states and the federal government. Finds this set of interactions exists everywhere, no matter what actions a state took in response to the ACA. Concludes this lack of particular behavior challenges theories on federalism.

Notes that a key aspect of the Medicaid program is the rate at which a state reimburses the providers of health services. Notes a 2015 Supreme Court case found that providers could not appeal to federal courts if they believed their reimbursement rates were too low. Finds this decision opened the door to states cutting reimbursement rates, at a period where many new people were entering Medicaid.

Notes American healthcare has historically excluded people from receiving care- private providers have claimed the right to treat (or not treat) whoever they want. Finds this system is challenged by changes to Medicaid from the Affordable Care Act, which opened up healthcare to any person below a certain income level, regardless of age or health.

Notes Medicaid is based on older state welfare programs that had a “deserving poor” in mind that were supposed to be supported. Finds the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid beyond these traditional groups, with the federal government providing almost all new funding for the program. Finds there is no compelling reason to keep Medicaid controlled by the states, and it would benefit being administered directly by the federal government, given state resistance to the expansion.