﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Emerging Issues Law Community Spotlight on Health Care Reform</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/emergingissues</link><description>Emerging Issues Law Community, LexisNexis</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/emergingissues/Rss.aspx?id=400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: State and Federal Governments Struggle Over Health Care </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/05/14/state-net-capitol-journal-state-and-federal-governments-struggle-over-health-care.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/05/14/state-net-capitol-journal-state-and-federal-governments-struggle-over-health-care.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;b&gt;By Lou Cannon&lt;/b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration&amp;#39;s vaunted plan for overhauling the nation&amp;#39;s health care system, will cost more, insure fewer people and probably take longer to implement than originally planned. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;States and the federal government are struggling to meet the deadlines for creating on-line marketplaces, known as exchanges, in which individuals and families will be able to purchase affordable health insurance policies. The exchanges are supposed to begin enrolling customers by Oct. 1, 2013, and be fully operational next January. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, states are facing &amp;quot;serious challenges&amp;quot; and some may be lagging in their efforts to meet these deadlines. &lt;br </description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:30:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: ACA Could Cost Businesses in Non-Expansion States $1.3 Billion Per Year</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/05/14/state-net-capitol-journal-aca-could-cost-businesses-in-non-expansion-states-1-3-billion-per-year.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/05/14/state-net-capitol-journal-aca-could-cost-businesses-in-non-expansion-states-1-3-billion-per-year.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The Affordable Care Act requires companies with more than 25 employees to pay a &amp;quot;shared responsibility&amp;quot; fine of $3,000 for each worker who isn&amp;#39;t eligible for Medicaid and who receives a federal tax subsidy because their employer doesn&amp;#39;t offer them health insurance. The provision was intended to induce small businesses to provide such insurance. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Analysis by Brian Haile of Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, however, found that for the 22 states that have opted out of the Medicaid expansion prescribed by the ACA - but made optional by the U.S. Supreme Court - the &amp;quot;shared responsibility&amp;quot; bill for small businesses could run as high as $1.3 billion per year. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Consequently, the National Federation of Independent Businesses is</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:26:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: States Ponder Broadening Health Care Scopes of Practice </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/04/19/state-net-capitol-journal-states-ponder-broadening-health-care-scopes-of-practice.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/04/19/state-net-capitol-journal-states-ponder-broadening-health-care-scopes-of-practice.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By Rich Ehisen&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There has long been friction in the relationship between doctors and other health care providers, with the former ferociously guarding their turf against incursion from the latter. But with the Affordable Care Act soon to bring 33 million new patients into the system, many states are pondering whether it is time to allow nurses, physician assistants, optometrists and even dentists to offer patients services they could previously only get from their primary care physician. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to State Net, as of March 25, 33 states this year have collectively introduced over 140 bills that address medical &amp;quot;scope of practice&amp;quot; issues - the standards that determine which medical providers can offer which services. Those regulations</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:32:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Sands Anderson PC: The Affordable Care Act: What Employers Need to Do Now to Plan for 2014</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/04/08/sands-anderson-pc-the-affordable-care-act-what-employers-need-to-do-now-to-plan-for-2014.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/04/08/sands-anderson-pc-the-affordable-care-act-what-employers-need-to-do-now-to-plan-for-2014.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By Jessica Rogers&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Beginning January 1, 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to have qualified health care coverage pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (&amp;quot;Act&amp;quot;). &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf"&gt;The Act &lt;/a&gt;requires employers defined as &amp;quot;large&amp;quot; to offer that coverage for its &amp;quot;full-time&amp;quot; employees or pay a penalty. Employers must act now to determine if they are required to provide that coverage (or pay a penalty), and to determine which employees are &amp;quot;full-time.&amp;quot; &lt;b&gt;The look-back periods for determining large employer status and for determining full-time status must begin in 2013. &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Sands-Anderson-logo.gif" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You must determine now: (i) if you are an applicable</description><author>Sands.Anderson@placeholder.com (Sands Anderson PC)</author><pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:59:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Steptoe &amp; Johnson PLLC: U.S. Supreme Court Limits State Medicaid Recoveries to Medical Expenses</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/03/25/steptoe-amp-johnson-pllc-u-s-supreme-court-limits-state-medicaid-recoveries-to-medical-expenses.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/03/25/steptoe-amp-johnson-pllc-u-s-supreme-court-limits-state-medicaid-recoveries-to-medical-expenses.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/TORTSLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Steptoe-and-Johnson-logo_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What happened?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a decision released last week, &lt;em&gt;Wos v. E.M.A.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;[&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%202372&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;i&gt;,&lt;/i&gt; the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated North Carolina&amp;#39;s Medicaid subrogation laws because they allowed the state to recover more than the medical expense portion of a Medicaid beneficiary&amp;#39;s settlement. The beneficiaries in &lt;em&gt;Wos&lt;/em&gt; settled a medical malpractice suit involving injuries to their child for $2.8 million. The trial court approved the unallocated settlement but set aside 1/3 in an escrow account, pursuant to</description><author>Andrew.Fulton@Steptoe-Johnson.com (Steptoe &amp; Johnson PLLC)</author><pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:09:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: States Have Key Role In Making Affordable Care Act Work </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/03/21/state-net-capitol-journal-states-have-key-role-in-making-affordable-care-act-work.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/03/21/state-net-capitol-journal-states-have-key-role-in-making-affordable-care-act-work.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By Lou Cannon&lt;/b&gt;&lt;strong&gt;,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;State Net Capitol Journal&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Winston Churchill famously described a crucial British military victory in North Africa during World War II as &amp;quot;not the end...not even the beginning of the end&amp;quot; but &amp;quot;perhaps, the end of the beginning.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that President Obama is now more than willing to call ObamaCare, the end of the beginning occurred in June when the Supreme Court ruled that most of the law is constitutional. By re-electing Obama and keeping the Senate in Democratic hands, voters doomed quixotic Republican hopes of repealing the law. Now comes the tangled path from the beginning to the end, in which much will be demanded from insurance companies and</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:56:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: Iowa Governor Issues Alternative to Medicaid Expansion </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/03/13/state-net-capitol-journal-iowa-governor-issues-alternative-to-medicaid-expansion.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/03/13/state-net-capitol-journal-iowa-governor-issues-alternative-to-medicaid-expansion.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) last week unveiled an alternative to expanding Medicaid in the Hawkeye State. Under federal health care reform, states are given the option of expanding their Medicaid eligibility to cover people living at up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line. In Iowa, that would add about 150,000 new enrollees into the system. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But Branstad opposes the expansion. Last week, he instead proposed replacing the state&amp;#39;s current health care program for poor adults - IowaCare - with a new one called the Healthy Iowa Plan that would cover only about 89,000 of those currently uninsured Iowans. IowaCare currently covers around 67,000 people. Enrollees would pay a small premium and get care at specific clinics, which he said would be paid to</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:56:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>LexisNexis Presents Free CLE-Accredited* Webinar: The Patient Protection &amp; Affordable Care Act - An ObamaCare Overview &amp; Outlook for In-House Counsel </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/02/25/lexisnexis-presents-free-cle-accredited-webinar-the-patient-protection-amp-affordable-care-act-an-obamacare-overview-amp-outlook-for-in-house-counsel.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/02/25/lexisnexis-presents-free-cle-accredited-webinar-the-patient-protection-amp-affordable-care-act-an-obamacare-overview-amp-outlook-for-in-house-counsel.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"&gt;&lt;img height="200" width="625" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/em/img/159207/ehdr.jpg" alt="Patient Protection &amp;amp; Affordable Care Act
An ObamaCare Overview &amp;amp; Outlook for In-House Counsel" border="0" id="headerImage" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div align="center"&gt;
&lt;table width="625" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:468.75pt;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in;"&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;"&gt;
&lt;td style="background:white;border:#f0f0f0;padding:0in;"&gt;
&lt;table align="left" width="60%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:60%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in;mso-table-lspace:2.25pt;mso-table-rspace:2.25pt;mso-table-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-table-anchor-horizontal:column;mso-table-left:left;"&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow</description><author>FC-RealEstate@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Emerging Issues Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:04:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: Health Care Reform Law Doesn't Halt Major Rate Hikes</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/02/05/state-net-capitol-journal-health-care-reform-law-doesn-t-halt-major-rate-hikes.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/02/05/state-net-capitol-journal-health-care-reform-law-doesn-t-halt-major-rate-hikes.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the main objectives of the Affordable Care Act was to stem the rising cost of health insurance for American consumers. But that hasn&amp;#39;t stopped health insurance companies from seeking and obtaining big premium increases across the country. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Florida and Ohio, insurers have secured rate increases of at least 20 percent for some policy holders, which can add several hundred dollars a month to their bills. And in California, Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield have proposed increases this year ranging from 20 to 26 percent for some customers. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The double-digit increases are coming just two years after the 39 percent rate hike Anthem Blue Cross sought in 2010 that helped spur the ACA. They&amp;#39;re also coming despite evidence that</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:36:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Federal Government Offers Rulemaking For Compromise On Birth Control Coverage</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/02/04/federal-government-offers-rulemaking-for-compromise-on-birth-control-coverage.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/02/04/federal-government-offers-rulemaking-for-compromise-on-birth-control-coverage.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Feb. 1 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on recommended changes to the preventive services policy contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=Federal%20Government%20Offers%20Rulemaking%20For%20Compromise%20On%20Birth%20Control%20Coverage&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Proposed rules available. Document #31-130206-022X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/WORKERSCOMPENSATIONLAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.WCLC+Images/WCLC-healthcare-reform-pills.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Proposed Rules&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regulations contained in the PPACA require that employee health insurance plans include no-cost sharing coverage for contraception and sterilization</description><author>cheryl.Keely@lexisnexis.com (Cheryl Keely)</author><pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:16:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Denies Injunction Pending Appellate Review Of Birth Control Issue</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/01/02/supreme-court-denies-injunction-pending-appellate-review-of-birth-control-issue.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2013/01/02/supreme-court-denies-injunction-pending-appellate-review-of-birth-control-issue.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) In an in-chambers order, the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 26 denied a request for an injunction pending appellate review of a lower court&amp;#39;s decision rejecting a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of a mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) related to the provision of birth control &lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;(Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12A644, U.S. Sup.; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 9594).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/WORKERSCOMPENSATIONLAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.WCLC+Images/WCLC-healthcare-reform-pills.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00206&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=Supreme%20Court%20Denies%20Injunction%20Pending%20Appellate%20Review%20Of%20Birth%20Control%20Issue&amp;amp;source</description><author>cheryl.Keely@lexisnexis.com (Cheryl Keely)</author><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:24:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Justice Sotomayor Leaves Contraceptives Mandate in Health Care Act Intact</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/12/28/justice-sotomayor-leaves-contraceptives-mandate-in-health-care-act-intact.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/12/28/justice-sotomayor-leaves-contraceptives-mandate-in-health-care-act-intact.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Dec. 26 refused to block enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act&amp;#39;s mandate that profit-making companies begin providing free birth control for women workers on Jan. 1 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12A644, U.S Sup.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/health-care-reform.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ruling on an application for an injunction filed before her as circuit justice for the 10&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; Circuit, Justice Sotomayor said Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., Mardel Inc. and five family members who indirectly own and control those corporations do not qualify for a court order against the mandate while they challenge the requirement in court</description><author>FC-RealEstate@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Emerging Issues Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:45:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court Orders 4th Circuit To Reconsider Health Care Act Challenge</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/11/26/u-s-supreme-court-orders-4th-circuit-to-reconsider-health-care-act-challenge.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/11/26/u-s-supreme-court-orders-4th-circuit-to-reconsider-health-care-act-challenge.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 26 revived a Christian university&amp;#39;s challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) when it ordered the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review the case in light of the high court&amp;#39;s ruling in a similar challenge earlier this year (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Liberty University, et al. v. Timothy Geithner, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 11-438, U.S. Sup.).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/WORKERSCOMPENSATIONLAW/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.WCLC+Images/WCLC-healthcare-reform-pills.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Certiorari Denied&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Supreme Court on June 29 denied without comment a petition for writ of &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt; in &lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Liberty University, et al. v. Timothy Geithner, et al.&lt;/span&gt; (No 11-438, U.S. Sup.). In &lt;span style="text-decoration</description><author>cheryl.Keely@lexisnexis.com (Cheryl Keely)</author><pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:45:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: Obama Election Win Leaves GOP Governors Scrambling on Affordable Care Act</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/11/13/state-net-capitol-journal-obama-election-win-leaves-gop-governors-scrambling-on-affordable-care-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/11/13/state-net-capitol-journal-obama-election-win-leaves-gop-governors-scrambling-on-affordable-care-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For most of the last year, a handful of Republican governors have refused to take action on implementing the Affordable Care Act, preferring instead to bank on the Supreme Court or the November presidential election to send the law to the legislative junk heap. But with all such options now exhausted, states must finally - and quickly - decide how they will go about putting the law into effect. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheryl Smith, a director at Leavitt Partners, a health consulting firm founded by former Utah Governor and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Michael Leavitt, says governors now have no choice but to lead the way in the law&amp;#39;s implementation. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;The folks who need to re-strategize at this point are going to be the Republican governors, for</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:34:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: Substantial Progress on Affordable Care Act Health Plan Benchmarks </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/10/12/state-net-capitol-journal-substantial-progress-on-affordable-care-act-health-plan-benchmarks.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/10/12/state-net-capitol-journal-substantial-progress-on-affordable-care-act-health-plan-benchmarks.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The Affordable Care Act requires states to provide a minimum package of services called &amp;quot;essential health benefits&amp;quot; (EHBs), and the Department of Health and Human Services is allowing each state to model its EHB plan after an existing small group health insurance plan, state employee health benefit plan, federal employee health benefit plan or HMO plan. Twenty-three states have selected such benchmark plans, according to the consulting firm Avalere Health and the State Refor(u)m, an initiative of the National Academy for State Health Policy. At least seven more states have identified potential EHB plans, while three others have opted not to choose a benchmark plan. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Times New Roman&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;serif&amp;#39;;font-size:10pt;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Times New Roman&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;serif&amp;#39;;font-size:10pt;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:17:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: States Look to Answer 'Essential' Health Question </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/10/10/state-net-capitol-journal-states-look-to-answer-essential-health-question.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/10/10/state-net-capitol-journal-states-look-to-answer-essential-health-question.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Although 35 of the 50 states have yet to create the marketplaces known as health benefits exchanges required by the Affordable Care Act, they aren&amp;#39;t completely ignoring the law&amp;#39;s impending requirements. A majority, in fact, are moving forward on another key component of federal health reform: defining what will be included in the health coverage plans insurers will offer under the law. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to consulting firm Avalere Health, 23 states and the District of Columbia met the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services&amp;#39; (HHS) Sept. 30 target date to identify benchmark health plans that define the essential health benefits (EHB) for all individual and small group policies the ACA requires. Analysis from the National Academy for State Health</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:45:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>ACLJ Files Second Lawsuit Asking Federal Court to Block HHS Mandate for Illinois Company </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/10/10/aclj-files-second-lawsuit-asking-federal-court-to-block-hhs-mandate-for-illinois-company.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/10/10/aclj-files-second-lawsuit-asking-federal-court-to-block-hhs-mandate-for-illinois-company.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C.&amp;nbsp;-- The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, has filed a second federal lawsuit challenging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that violates the religious beliefs of Illinois business owners. The new &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://globalmessaging2.prnewswire.com/clickthrough/servlet/clickthrough?msg_id=7292946&amp;amp;adr_order=726&amp;amp;url=aHR0cDovL2MwMzkxMDcwLmNkbjIuY2xvdWRmaWxlcy5yYWNrc3BhY2VjbG91ZC5jb20vcGRmL2tv%0AcnRlLXYtaGhzLWNvbXBsYWludC1vYmFtYS1hYm9ydGlvbi1waWxsLW1hbmRhdGUtc3VpdC5wZGY%3D"&gt;lawsuit&lt;/a&gt;, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, argues that the HHS mandate violates constitutional and statutory rights by requiring the company to purchase health insurance for employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/WORKERSCOMPENSATIONLAW</description><author>FC-RealEstate@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Emerging Issues Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:37:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Net Capitol Journal: Can California Rescue the Affordable Care Act? </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/09/28/state-net-capitol-journal-can-california-rescue-the-affordable-care-act.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/09/28/state-net-capitol-journal-can-california-rescue-the-affordable-care-act.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/StateNet_5F00_logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While national candidates wage a war of words and half-truths on health issues, a handful of states, led by California, are charging ahead to implement the key feature of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), widely viewed as the signal achievement of Barack Obama&amp;#39;s presidency. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The feature is an on-line state marketplace, known as a health insurance exchange, in which families and individuals will be able to shop for affordable health care policies. These exchanges are supposed to begin enrolling applicants by October 2013 and be up and running by Jan. 1, 2014. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backers of the ACA shared high fives of congratulation after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the law early this summer. Since then, however, several states have</description><author>StateNet@placeholder.com (State Net)</author><pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:12:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>LexisNexis Acquires EDIWatch, Provider of Leading Health Care Fraud Waste and Abuse Workflow Solutions </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/09/05/lexisnexis-acquires-ediwatch-provider-of-leading-health-care-fraud-waste-and-abuse-workflow-solutions.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/09/05/lexisnexis-acquires-ediwatch-provider-of-leading-health-care-fraud-waste-and-abuse-workflow-solutions.aspx</guid><description>&lt;h2 style="margin:auto 0in;"&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:small;"&gt;Company strengthens its advanced analytics, health care offering with end-to-end solution &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:small;"&gt;LexisNexis&amp;reg; Risk Solutions on Sept. 5 announced it has acquired EDIWatch, Inc., a privately-held leading provider of fraud, waste and abuse (FWA) technology solutions exclusively for the health care payer industry.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="object2"&gt;&lt;b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family</description><author>FC-RealEstate@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Emerging Issues Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:11:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Ballard Spahr LLP Alert: Wellness Program Did Not Violate ADA, Appellate Court Rules</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/28/ballard-spahr-llp-alert-wellness-program-did-not-violate-ada-appellate-court-rules.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/28/ballard-spahr-llp-alert-wellness-program-did-not-violate-ada-appellate-court-rules.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/PORTAL/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Ballard-Spahr-logo.jpg" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;by Clifford J. Schoner and Brian M. Pinheiro&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld a&amp;nbsp;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.ballardspahr.com/AlertsPublications/LegalAlerts/2011-04-14_Court_Rules_Wellness_Program_Does_Not_Violate_ADA"&gt;federal district court ruling&lt;/a&gt; that a wellness program instituted by Broward County, Florida, does not violate the general prohibition under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-voluntary medical examinations and inquiries that are not job-related.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;In &lt;i&gt;Seff v. Broward County Florida&lt;/i&gt;, the court determined that the wellness program qualified for an ADA safe harbor that applies to a bona fide employee benefit arrangement, the terms of which are based on underwriting risks, classifying</description><author>BallardSpahr@placeholder.com (Ballard Spahr LLP)</author><pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Fulbright &amp; Jaworski: "GAO Issues Report Estimating PPACA Effect on Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage"</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/24/fulbright-amp-jaworski-quot-gao-issues-report-estimating-ppaca-effect-on-employer-sponsored-health-coverage-quot.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/24/fulbright-amp-jaworski-quot-gao-issues-report-estimating-ppaca-effect-on-employer-sponsored-health-coverage-quot.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=attorneys.detail&amp;amp;emp_id=14818"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/Portal/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Fulbright-_2600_-Jaworski-L.L.P.jpg" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Mark Faccenda &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On August 13, 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (&amp;quot;GAO&amp;quot;) issued a report in which it determined that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act&amp;#39;s (&amp;quot;PPACA&amp;quot;) immediate effect on employer-sponsored healthcare coverage would be minimal. Report GAO-12-768, entitled Estimates of the Effect on the Prevalence of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage, estimated a two-year change &amp;quot; rang[ing] from a net decrease of 2.5 percent to a net increase of 2.7 percent in the total number of individuals with employer-sponsored coverage . . . affecting up to about 4 million individuals</description><author>FulbrightandJaworski@placeholder.com (Fulbright and Jaworski L.L.P. )</author><pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:26:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Fulbright &amp; Jaworski : "Telemedicine Amidst Healthcare Reform: Avoiding Legal Pitfalls"</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/23/fulbright-amp-jaworski-quot-telemedicine-amidst-healthcare-reform-avoiding-legal-pitfalls-quot.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/23/fulbright-amp-jaworski-quot-telemedicine-amidst-healthcare-reform-avoiding-legal-pitfalls-quot.aspx</guid><description>
&lt;table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/emergingissues/controlpanel/blogs/posteditor.aspx/http:\\www.fulbright.com"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/PORTAL/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Fulbright-_2600_-Jaworski-L.L.P.jpg" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=attorneys.detail&amp;amp;emp_id=10972"&gt;Mark Anthony Kadzielski&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=attorneys.detail&amp;amp;emp_id=14411"&gt;Kristina Pervi Ayers&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=attorneys.detail&amp;amp;emp_id=14555"&gt;Jee-Young Kim&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The United States Supreme Court&amp;#39;s recent decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable</description><author>FulbrightandJaworski@placeholder.com (Fulbright and Jaworski L.L.P. )</author><pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:26:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Williams Mullen Alert: Health Care Reform Outlook</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/17/williams-mullen-alert-health-care-reform-outlook.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/17/williams-mullen-alert-health-care-reform-outlook.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Williams-Mullen-logo.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;By Brydon M. DeWitt and Michael J. Ferrell&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;With the Supreme Court&amp;#39;s landmark decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, employers have a renewed interest in what the Act will mean for their businesses in the years ahead. Employers need to be aware of the possible political outcome as they continue to make sure their plans are in compliance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;b&gt;Political Aspects of the Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The political reaction to the Court&amp;#39;s majority decision has been swift and predictable. No sooner had the court ruled than both sides of the political aisle began plotting their next moves. Proponents immediately vowed to vigorously defend and implement the Act expeditiously. Meanwhile, opponents renewed</description><author>WilliamsMullen@placeholder.com (Williams Mullen)</author><pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:47:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Cadwalader Client &amp; Friends Memo: A 'Hat Trick' of Heightened False Claims Act Risks for Health Care Providers</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/14/cadwalader-client-amp-friends-memo-a-hat-trick-of-heightened-false-claims-act-risks-for-health-care-providers.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/08/14/cadwalader-client-amp-friends-memo-a-hat-trick-of-heightened-false-claims-act-risks-for-health-care-providers.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/tortslaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Cadwalader-logo.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Introduction&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the risk of stating the obvious, fighting and prosecuting health care fraud are top priorities for the Federal Government, and the False Claims Act (&amp;quot;FCA&amp;quot;) is its weapon of choice in the battle. In a speech in June, Stuart Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice (&amp;quot;DOJ&amp;quot;) Civil Division, stated the DOJ has recovered over $11 billion under the FCA, including over $7.4 billion in health care fraud.2 The Federal Government has a willing and motivated ally: more than 630 &lt;i&gt;qui tam &lt;/i&gt;matters were filed with the DOJ, over two-thirds of which allege false claims to government health care programs.3 These numbers represent the greatest number of lawsuits ever filed within a year in the 150-plus year</description><author>Cadwalader@placeholder.com (Cadwalader, Wickersham &amp; Taft LLP)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:15:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Colorado Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction In Contraception Mandate Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/07/30/colorado-federal-judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-in-contraception-mandate-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2012/07/30/colorado-federal-judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-in-contraception-mandate-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;DENVER - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A Colorado federal judge on July 27 granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a for-profit secular employer that will prevent the federal government from enforcing a mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that requires most employers to provide birth control coverage as part of their employee health plans (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;William Newland, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-12-1123, D. Colo.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104835).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00206&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=Colorado%20Federal%20Judge%20Grants%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20In%20Contraception%20Mandate%20Case&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Opinion available. Document #31-120801-017Z&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community</description><author>cheryl.Keely@lexisnexis.com (Cheryl Keely)</author><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:36:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>