Abstract
When interpreting legislation, courts are often presented with opportunities to address health-care inequalities. This chapter describes four instances showing the judiciary's reluctance to confront health-care inequalities. It argues that despite precedent for judicial intervention to change social policy in public education, welfare rights, and judicial takeovers of certain institutions, there has been considerable judicial reluctance to do so in health care. The courts have systematically chosen markets over equity. Medicare/Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), the Hill-Burton Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are examples that several trends advocates should consider in devising strategies for reducing health-care inequalities.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good Society |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| ISBN (Print) | 9780199850204, 9780195170665 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Oct 3 2011 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Courts
- Emergency medical treatment
- Employee retirement income
- EMTALA
- ERISA
- Health-care inequalities
- Hill-burton act
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Social policy
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
Cite this
Courts, Inequality, and Health Care. / Jacobson, Peter D.; Selvin, Elizabeth.
Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good Society. Oxford University Press, 2011.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter
}
TY - CHAP
T1 - Courts, Inequality, and Health Care
AU - Jacobson, Peter D.
AU - Selvin, Elizabeth
PY - 2011/10/3
Y1 - 2011/10/3
N2 - When interpreting legislation, courts are often presented with opportunities to address health-care inequalities. This chapter describes four instances showing the judiciary's reluctance to confront health-care inequalities. It argues that despite precedent for judicial intervention to change social policy in public education, welfare rights, and judicial takeovers of certain institutions, there has been considerable judicial reluctance to do so in health care. The courts have systematically chosen markets over equity. Medicare/Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), the Hill-Burton Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are examples that several trends advocates should consider in devising strategies for reducing health-care inequalities.
AB - When interpreting legislation, courts are often presented with opportunities to address health-care inequalities. This chapter describes four instances showing the judiciary's reluctance to confront health-care inequalities. It argues that despite precedent for judicial intervention to change social policy in public education, welfare rights, and judicial takeovers of certain institutions, there has been considerable judicial reluctance to do so in health care. The courts have systematically chosen markets over equity. Medicare/Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), the Hill-Burton Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are examples that several trends advocates should consider in devising strategies for reducing health-care inequalities.
KW - Courts
KW - Emergency medical treatment
KW - Employee retirement income
KW - EMTALA
KW - ERISA
KW - Health-care inequalities
KW - Hill-burton act
KW - Medicaid
KW - Medicare
KW - Social policy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921557729&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921557729&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170665.003.0038
DO - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170665.003.0038
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:84921557729
SN - 9780199850204
SN - 9780195170665
BT - Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good Society
PB - Oxford University Press
ER -