6 Supreme Court decisions that affected ObGyns in 2015

You might ask, why do I need to know what the Supreme Court does, it will not affect me! Well, we all know that is not exactly true. We chose these 6 cases because of their importance to ObGyns. In a number of them, the American Medical Association (AMA) or specific specialty board filed amicus curiae briefs, which suggested that the profession felt these were especially critical cases. (An amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed not by one of the affected parties, but by an organization or person with an interest or special expertise in the case.) You can find additional analysis of the 2015 term of the Supreme Court at the website of the National Register (http://www.nationalregister.org/pub/the-national-registerreport-pub/the-register-report-fall-2015/the-aca-survives-and-same-sex-marriage-thrives-the-2014-2015-supreme-court/).

1. Affordable Care Act upheld
King v Burwell was likely the Court’s most important case for physicians and their patients during the 2015 term.
At stake. The question was whether or not people who use the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) Exchange could receive the same subsidy as those who use the state established Exchanges.¹
Final ruling. The Court said “yes,” they could receive the same subsidy, ruling in favor of King.

Key points of the case
The ACA provides for state Exchanges (an electronic marketplace in which people can compare and purchase health insurance policies), but most states did not establish Exchanges. As a result, in many states the federal Exchange became the default. Because the ACA subsidies (which help many people afford mandated insurance coverage) are processed through exchanges, the question of whether those who used the federal Exchange received the subsidy was enormously important. Subsidies for millions of individuals depended on it.

The language of the ACA provides that the insurance subsidy is available only if the person(s) enroll in “an Exchange established by the State” (emphasis added).¹ This case was about what “Exchange established by the State” means. A 6-justice majority held that the best interpretation of the statute was that it permitted subsidies through the federal Exchange. This was a difficult decision because, as the majority noted, the ACA is sloppily written. Nonetheless, the Court had to do its best to read the language in the context of the whole statute. Six justices held that the statute meant that the subsidies would cover people who signed up through federal as well as state Exchanges.

The dissenting justices essentially took the position that the language of the statute is clear. Among other things, the dissent said, it means that the words “established by the state” have no meaning at all in the statute, and it is unclear why Congress did not say “Exchange” instead of “Exchange established by the state.”

The results of the case were that the subsidies granted through the federal Exchange will continue. It will not expand the subsidies. Had the decision gone the other way, there would have been a real challenge to the future of the ACA. For that reason a number of medical and health care organizations filed amicus briefs with the Court in this case.

2. State licensing boards and antitrust
At stake. Antitrust laws prohibit combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade. Competitors cannot come together to seek to set prices, divide the market, or prevent new competitors from entering the market. Since the 1940s, however, the Supreme Court has recognized a “state action” exception to the antitrust laws. The question before the Court this term was whether or not a state licensing board is included in the state-action immunity.²

The AMA and others filed an amicus brief in this case, noting threat to the public health if the Court disrupted state medical boards’ regulation of professional licensing and unauthorized practice.

Final ruling. The Court rejected this argument. It held that, where a state board is “controlled by active market participants” (as most state professional boards are), antitrust immunity is not automatic. For the immunity to protect boards, 2 conditions must exist, the Court held:

1. The state must have articulated a clear policy to allow the regulation that is an anticompetitive conduct (eg, licensing)

2. The state must have provided active supervision of the anticompetitive conduct. This requires that the state appoint someone or some group to approve policies of the board.

The first of these requirements often would be met by the statute setting up the board. The Court focused some attention on the second requirement. It concluded that “the adequacy of supervision otherwise will depend on all the circumstances of a case.”²

Key points of the case
In most states, this decision will require some kind of restructuring so that the professional boards are not the final decision makers but, in effect, only make recommendations to a “supervisor.” The Court gave short shrift to the AMA’s concerns that the decision might make it more difficult to attract really good professionals to the boards. The possibility of personal liability probably can be dealt with, but it deserves attention. The problems with litigation and antitrust claims, and reviews of decisions of a board (potentially by nonprofessionals) hardly can be a plus in attracting the right professionals to the boards.

This case will give rise to considerable litigation for many years. Medical boards should endeavor to get ahead of the issue by immediately studying ways in which the concerns of the Federal Trade Commissioncan be accommodated without significantly reducing the public protection that is part of well-administered professional licensing.

3. State reimbursement for Medicaid services
Medicaid is a federal-state program, and federal law requires, in part, that states must “assure that payments are … sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.”³ Providers claimed that the state had failed to establish such a payment system. A number of medical groups, including the AMA, filed amicus briefs in support of the providers.

At stake. State funding for various Medicaid services has been a problem for many health care professionals for some time. But the Medicaid law does not clearly give providers the right to file lawsuits claiming inadequate reimbursement,_⁴ so the question in this case was whether or not there was an implied right to do so.

Final ruling. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Medicaid providers do not have the authority to sue states in federal courts torequire that the states provide higher Medicaid rates for services.⁴ As a practical matter, this decision leaves with the states broad authority to set Medicaid reimbursement rates. It is possible, of course, that in the future Congress would change the law to grant such rights or more clearly set reimbursement rates.

4. False Claims Act cases
Unfortunately, False Claims Act cases occur in health care. False claims transpire when someone (or an organization) presents to the government a claim for payment that is not legitimate or is for inadequate or low quality services. False claims include everything from fraudulent billing for services never performed to a pharmaceutical company’s promotion of a drug for off-label use.

The federal False Claims Act incentivizes private whistleblowers (often disgruntled employees) to initiate false claims lawsuits. (The government may then choose to take over the false claims or allow the private whistleblower to pursue them.)

At stake. Because Medicare and Medicaid are federally financed programs, it is common for providers who participate in those programs to be subject to false claims.⁵ This term the Court heard an important False Claims Act case involving the statute of limitations and multiple claims based on the same activity. The AMA joined an amicus brief urging the Court to prohibit both kinds of expansion.

Final ruling. The Court agreed that the statute of limitations for these claims should not be extended, but it did determine that the “first-to-file” limitation in the statute “keeps new claims out of court only while related claims are still alive, not in perpetuity.”⁵ The result of this second holding is that the “firstto-file” rule does not preclude another false claims suit that is duplicative to be filed as soon as the prior suit is no longer pending.

It is not clear that the practical effect of the decision will be great, but it may in some cases open up clinicians to multiple, serial lawsuits over the same claims.

5. Pregnancy and employment discrimination
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” It also requires that employers treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

At stake. United Parcel Service (UPS) declined to give a pregnant employee a “light duty” accommodation during pregnancy so that she could avoid having to lift heavy packages. But it had given other employees just that kind of accommodation when they were injured or lost certification to drive a delivery truck. The suit claimed violation of the PDA.⁶

Final ruling. The Court held that UPS violated the PDA by giving some employees this accommodation but refusing it to pregnant workers who requested it.6 Once an organization voluntarily grants a particular accommodation to, for example, a temporarily injured worker, it may be required to provide similar accommodation to pregnant workers. The case probably will increase employment protection for pregnant women.

6. Children “testifying” in abuse cases
All states require physicians and teachers, among others, to report suspected child abuse. An ongoing question has been whether those reporters may be called to testify about what the child said at the time of abuse discovery/suspicion. This case involved a teacher, but it could as easily have been a physician.⁷

Key points of the case. Teachers found suspicious injuries on 3-year-old L.P. The child gave conflicting statements about what happened, but claimed that Clark had hurt him. At Clark’s criminal trial, L.P. did not testify, but the state wanted to introduce L.P.’s statements to the teachers as evidence of Clark’s guilt.

At stake. The question was whether or not this introduction would violate the right of Clark to “confront his accuser” as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Final ruling. All 9 justices said it was proper to allow L.P.’s statements to be introduced at trial.⁷ Essentially this was permitted because the primary purpose of L.P.’s statements was not to gather testimony to be presented at trial.

The final opinion creates incentives for some prosecutors to make abuse victims unavailable in order to allow their testimony by hearsay. Aside from the legal technicalities, the likelihood of wrongful convictions under such a system must be considered for the long run.

Other major 2015 Supreme Court decisions
- The Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriages and also accept such marriages performed in other states.¹ (The American Medical Association joined an amicus brief in this case.)
- The Court turned down the appeal of several inmates who had received lethal injection death sentences. They challenged the mix of drugs that Oklahoma planned to use to execute them.²
- In 2 cases justices went out of the way to raise questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty. This may suggest that the Court will take up this issue in the near future.^2,3
- Federal housing discrimination laws were expanded to cases in which there is “disparate impact” discrimination.⁴
- The Court narrowed prosecution for “threatening” statements in social network/Internet communications by holding that negligence in the communication is not sufficient for conviction under federal law.⁵
- The Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act with its power plant emission regulations because it failed to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.⁶

References
1. Obergefell et al v Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al, No. 14–556 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
2. Glossip et al v Gross et al, No. 14–7955 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
3. Davis, Acting Worden v Ayala, No. 13–1428 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1428_1a7d.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
4. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al v Inclusive Communities Project, Inc et al, No. 13–1371 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_8m58.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
5. Elonis v United States, No. 13–983 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7148.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
6. Michigan et al v Environmental Protection Agency et al, No. 14–46 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_bqmc.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.

What’s coming in 2016
This term of the Supreme Court is a reminder of how important the decisions of the Court are to the work of physicians and ObGyns in particular. This trend is continuing—the Court already has, for the next term, accepted cases regarding abortion, contraception, and health care delivery. It will, therefore, be worthwhile to follow the developments at the nation’s highest court.

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

You might ask, why do I need to know what the Supreme Court does, it will not affect me! Well, we all know that is not exactly true. We chose these 6 cases because of their importance to ObGyns. In a number of them, the American Medical Association (AMA) or specific specialty board filed amicus curiae briefs, which suggested that the profession felt these were especially critical cases. (An amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed not by one of the affected parties, but by an organization or person with an interest or special expertise in the case.) You can find additional analysis of the 2015 term of the Supreme Court at the website of the National Register (http://www.nationalregister.org/pub/the-national-registerreport-pub/the-register-report-fall-2015/the-aca-survives-and-same-sex-marriage-thrives-the-2014-2015-supreme-court/).

1. Affordable Care Act upheld
King v Burwell was likely the Court’s most important case for physicians and their patients during the 2015 term.
At stake. The question was whether or not people who use the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) Exchange could receive the same subsidy as those who use the state established Exchanges.¹
Final ruling. The Court said “yes,” they could receive the same subsidy, ruling in favor of King.

Key points of the case
The ACA provides for state Exchanges (an electronic marketplace in which people can compare and purchase health insurance policies), but most states did not establish Exchanges. As a result, in many states the federal Exchange became the default. Because the ACA subsidies (which help many people afford mandated insurance coverage) are processed through exchanges, the question of whether those who used the federal Exchange received the subsidy was enormously important. Subsidies for millions of individuals depended on it.

The language of the ACA provides that the insurance subsidy is available only if the person(s) enroll in “an Exchange established by the State” (emphasis added).¹ This case was about what “Exchange established by the State” means. A 6-justice majority held that the best interpretation of the statute was that it permitted subsidies through the federal Exchange. This was a difficult decision because, as the majority noted, the ACA is sloppily written. Nonetheless, the Court had to do its best to read the language in the context of the whole statute. Six justices held that the statute meant that the subsidies would cover people who signed up through federal as well as state Exchanges.

The dissenting justices essentially took the position that the language of the statute is clear. Among other things, the dissent said, it means that the words “established by the state” have no meaning at all in the statute, and it is unclear why Congress did not say “Exchange” instead of “Exchange established by the state.”

The results of the case were that the subsidies granted through the federal Exchange will continue. It will not expand the subsidies. Had the decision gone the other way, there would have been a real challenge to the future of the ACA. For that reason a number of medical and health care organizations filed amicus briefs with the Court in this case.

2. State licensing boards and antitrust
At stake. Antitrust laws prohibit combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade. Competitors cannot come together to seek to set prices, divide the market, or prevent new competitors from entering the market. Since the 1940s, however, the Supreme Court has recognized a “state action” exception to the antitrust laws. The question before the Court this term was whether or not a state licensing board is included in the state-action immunity.²

The AMA and others filed an amicus brief in this case, noting threat to the public health if the Court disrupted state medical boards’ regulation of professional licensing and unauthorized practice.

Final ruling. The Court rejected this argument. It held that, where a state board is “controlled by active market participants” (as most state professional boards are), antitrust immunity is not automatic. For the immunity to protect boards, 2 conditions must exist, the Court held:

1. The state must have articulated a clear policy to allow the regulation that is an anticompetitive conduct (eg, licensing)

2. The state must have provided active supervision of the anticompetitive conduct. This requires that the state appoint someone or some group to approve policies of the board.

The first of these requirements often would be met by the statute setting up the board. The Court focused some attention on the second requirement. It concluded that “the adequacy of supervision otherwise will depend on all the circumstances of a case.”²

Key points of the case
In most states, this decision will require some kind of restructuring so that the professional boards are not the final decision makers but, in effect, only make recommendations to a “supervisor.” The Court gave short shrift to the AMA’s concerns that the decision might make it more difficult to attract really good professionals to the boards. The possibility of personal liability probably can be dealt with, but it deserves attention. The problems with litigation and antitrust claims, and reviews of decisions of a board (potentially by nonprofessionals) hardly can be a plus in attracting the right professionals to the boards.

This case will give rise to considerable litigation for many years. Medical boards should endeavor to get ahead of the issue by immediately studying ways in which the concerns of the Federal Trade Commissioncan be accommodated without significantly reducing the public protection that is part of well-administered professional licensing.

3. State reimbursement for Medicaid services
Medicaid is a federal-state program, and federal law requires, in part, that states must “assure that payments are … sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.”³ Providers claimed that the state had failed to establish such a payment system. A number of medical groups, including the AMA, filed amicus briefs in support of the providers.

At stake. State funding for various Medicaid services has been a problem for many health care professionals for some time. But the Medicaid law does not clearly give providers the right to file lawsuits claiming inadequate reimbursement,_⁴ so the question in this case was whether or not there was an implied right to do so.

Final ruling. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Medicaid providers do not have the authority to sue states in federal courts torequire that the states provide higher Medicaid rates for services.⁴ As a practical matter, this decision leaves with the states broad authority to set Medicaid reimbursement rates. It is possible, of course, that in the future Congress would change the law to grant such rights or more clearly set reimbursement rates.

4. False Claims Act cases
Unfortunately, False Claims Act cases occur in health care. False claims transpire when someone (or an organization) presents to the government a claim for payment that is not legitimate or is for inadequate or low quality services. False claims include everything from fraudulent billing for services never performed to a pharmaceutical company’s promotion of a drug for off-label use.

The federal False Claims Act incentivizes private whistleblowers (often disgruntled employees) to initiate false claims lawsuits. (The government may then choose to take over the false claims or allow the private whistleblower to pursue them.)

At stake. Because Medicare and Medicaid are federally financed programs, it is common for providers who participate in those programs to be subject to false claims.⁵ This term the Court heard an important False Claims Act case involving the statute of limitations and multiple claims based on the same activity. The AMA joined an amicus brief urging the Court to prohibit both kinds of expansion.

Final ruling. The Court agreed that the statute of limitations for these claims should not be extended, but it did determine that the “first-to-file” limitation in the statute “keeps new claims out of court only while related claims are still alive, not in perpetuity.”⁵ The result of this second holding is that the “firstto-file” rule does not preclude another false claims suit that is duplicative to be filed as soon as the prior suit is no longer pending.

It is not clear that the practical effect of the decision will be great, but it may in some cases open up clinicians to multiple, serial lawsuits over the same claims.

5. Pregnancy and employment discrimination
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” It also requires that employers treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

At stake. United Parcel Service (UPS) declined to give a pregnant employee a “light duty” accommodation during pregnancy so that she could avoid having to lift heavy packages. But it had given other employees just that kind of accommodation when they were injured or lost certification to drive a delivery truck. The suit claimed violation of the PDA.⁶

Final ruling. The Court held that UPS violated the PDA by giving some employees this accommodation but refusing it to pregnant workers who requested it.6 Once an organization voluntarily grants a particular accommodation to, for example, a temporarily injured worker, it may be required to provide similar accommodation to pregnant workers. The case probably will increase employment protection for pregnant women.

6. Children “testifying” in abuse cases
All states require physicians and teachers, among others, to report suspected child abuse. An ongoing question has been whether those reporters may be called to testify about what the child said at the time of abuse discovery/suspicion. This case involved a teacher, but it could as easily have been a physician.⁷

Key points of the case. Teachers found suspicious injuries on 3-year-old L.P. The child gave conflicting statements about what happened, but claimed that Clark had hurt him. At Clark’s criminal trial, L.P. did not testify, but the state wanted to introduce L.P.’s statements to the teachers as evidence of Clark’s guilt.

At stake. The question was whether or not this introduction would violate the right of Clark to “confront his accuser” as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Final ruling. All 9 justices said it was proper to allow L.P.’s statements to be introduced at trial.⁷ Essentially this was permitted because the primary purpose of L.P.’s statements was not to gather testimony to be presented at trial.

The final opinion creates incentives for some prosecutors to make abuse victims unavailable in order to allow their testimony by hearsay. Aside from the legal technicalities, the likelihood of wrongful convictions under such a system must be considered for the long run.

Other major 2015 Supreme Court decisions
- The Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriages and also accept such marriages performed in other states.¹ (The American Medical Association joined an amicus brief in this case.)
- The Court turned down the appeal of several inmates who had received lethal injection death sentences. They challenged the mix of drugs that Oklahoma planned to use to execute them.²
- In 2 cases justices went out of the way to raise questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty. This may suggest that the Court will take up this issue in the near future.^2,3
- Federal housing discrimination laws were expanded to cases in which there is “disparate impact” discrimination.⁴
- The Court narrowed prosecution for “threatening” statements in social network/Internet communications by holding that negligence in the communication is not sufficient for conviction under federal law.⁵
- The Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act with its power plant emission regulations because it failed to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.⁶

References
1. Obergefell et al v Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al, No. 14–556 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
2. Glossip et al v Gross et al, No. 14–7955 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
3. Davis, Acting Worden v Ayala, No. 13–1428 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1428_1a7d.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
4. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al v Inclusive Communities Project, Inc et al, No. 13–1371 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_8m58.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
5. Elonis v United States, No. 13–983 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7148.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
6. Michigan et al v Environmental Protection Agency et al, No. 14–46 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_bqmc.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.

What’s coming in 2016
This term of the Supreme Court is a reminder of how important the decisions of the Court are to the work of physicians and ObGyns in particular. This trend is continuing—the Court already has, for the next term, accepted cases regarding abortion, contraception, and health care delivery. It will, therefore, be worthwhile to follow the developments at the nation’s highest court.

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

You might ask, why do I need to know what the Supreme Court does, it will not affect me! Well, we all know that is not exactly true. We chose these 6 cases because of their importance to ObGyns. In a number of them, the American Medical Association (AMA) or specific specialty board filed amicus curiae briefs, which suggested that the profession felt these were especially critical cases. (An amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed not by one of the affected parties, but by an organization or person with an interest or special expertise in the case.) You can find additional analysis of the 2015 term of the Supreme Court at the website of the National Register (http://www.nationalregister.org/pub/the-national-registerreport-pub/the-register-report-fall-2015/the-aca-survives-and-same-sex-marriage-thrives-the-2014-2015-supreme-court/).

1. Affordable Care Act upheld
King v Burwell was likely the Court’s most important case for physicians and their patients during the 2015 term.
At stake. The question was whether or not people who use the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) Exchange could receive the same subsidy as those who use the state established Exchanges.¹
Final ruling. The Court said “yes,” they could receive the same subsidy, ruling in favor of King.

Key points of the case
The ACA provides for state Exchanges (an electronic marketplace in which people can compare and purchase health insurance policies), but most states did not establish Exchanges. As a result, in many states the federal Exchange became the default. Because the ACA subsidies (which help many people afford mandated insurance coverage) are processed through exchanges, the question of whether those who used the federal Exchange received the subsidy was enormously important. Subsidies for millions of individuals depended on it.

The language of the ACA provides that the insurance subsidy is available only if the person(s) enroll in “an Exchange established by the State” (emphasis added).¹ This case was about what “Exchange established by the State” means. A 6-justice majority held that the best interpretation of the statute was that it permitted subsidies through the federal Exchange. This was a difficult decision because, as the majority noted, the ACA is sloppily written. Nonetheless, the Court had to do its best to read the language in the context of the whole statute. Six justices held that the statute meant that the subsidies would cover people who signed up through federal as well as state Exchanges.

The dissenting justices essentially took the position that the language of the statute is clear. Among other things, the dissent said, it means that the words “established by the state” have no meaning at all in the statute, and it is unclear why Congress did not say “Exchange” instead of “Exchange established by the state.”

The results of the case were that the subsidies granted through the federal Exchange will continue. It will not expand the subsidies. Had the decision gone the other way, there would have been a real challenge to the future of the ACA. For that reason a number of medical and health care organizations filed amicus briefs with the Court in this case.

2. State licensing boards and antitrust
At stake. Antitrust laws prohibit combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade. Competitors cannot come together to seek to set prices, divide the market, or prevent new competitors from entering the market. Since the 1940s, however, the Supreme Court has recognized a “state action” exception to the antitrust laws. The question before the Court this term was whether or not a state licensing board is included in the state-action immunity.²

The AMA and others filed an amicus brief in this case, noting threat to the public health if the Court disrupted state medical boards’ regulation of professional licensing and unauthorized practice.

Final ruling. The Court rejected this argument. It held that, where a state board is “controlled by active market participants” (as most state professional boards are), antitrust immunity is not automatic. For the immunity to protect boards, 2 conditions must exist, the Court held:

1. The state must have articulated a clear policy to allow the regulation that is an anticompetitive conduct (eg, licensing)

2. The state must have provided active supervision of the anticompetitive conduct. This requires that the state appoint someone or some group to approve policies of the board.

The first of these requirements often would be met by the statute setting up the board. The Court focused some attention on the second requirement. It concluded that “the adequacy of supervision otherwise will depend on all the circumstances of a case.”²

Key points of the case
In most states, this decision will require some kind of restructuring so that the professional boards are not the final decision makers but, in effect, only make recommendations to a “supervisor.” The Court gave short shrift to the AMA’s concerns that the decision might make it more difficult to attract really good professionals to the boards. The possibility of personal liability probably can be dealt with, but it deserves attention. The problems with litigation and antitrust claims, and reviews of decisions of a board (potentially by nonprofessionals) hardly can be a plus in attracting the right professionals to the boards.

This case will give rise to considerable litigation for many years. Medical boards should endeavor to get ahead of the issue by immediately studying ways in which the concerns of the Federal Trade Commissioncan be accommodated without significantly reducing the public protection that is part of well-administered professional licensing.

3. State reimbursement for Medicaid services
Medicaid is a federal-state program, and federal law requires, in part, that states must “assure that payments are … sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.”³ Providers claimed that the state had failed to establish such a payment system. A number of medical groups, including the AMA, filed amicus briefs in support of the providers.

At stake. State funding for various Medicaid services has been a problem for many health care professionals for some time. But the Medicaid law does not clearly give providers the right to file lawsuits claiming inadequate reimbursement,_⁴ so the question in this case was whether or not there was an implied right to do so.

Final ruling. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Medicaid providers do not have the authority to sue states in federal courts torequire that the states provide higher Medicaid rates for services.⁴ As a practical matter, this decision leaves with the states broad authority to set Medicaid reimbursement rates. It is possible, of course, that in the future Congress would change the law to grant such rights or more clearly set reimbursement rates.

4. False Claims Act cases
Unfortunately, False Claims Act cases occur in health care. False claims transpire when someone (or an organization) presents to the government a claim for payment that is not legitimate or is for inadequate or low quality services. False claims include everything from fraudulent billing for services never performed to a pharmaceutical company’s promotion of a drug for off-label use.

The federal False Claims Act incentivizes private whistleblowers (often disgruntled employees) to initiate false claims lawsuits. (The government may then choose to take over the false claims or allow the private whistleblower to pursue them.)

At stake. Because Medicare and Medicaid are federally financed programs, it is common for providers who participate in those programs to be subject to false claims.⁵ This term the Court heard an important False Claims Act case involving the statute of limitations and multiple claims based on the same activity. The AMA joined an amicus brief urging the Court to prohibit both kinds of expansion.

Final ruling. The Court agreed that the statute of limitations for these claims should not be extended, but it did determine that the “first-to-file” limitation in the statute “keeps new claims out of court only while related claims are still alive, not in perpetuity.”⁵ The result of this second holding is that the “firstto-file” rule does not preclude another false claims suit that is duplicative to be filed as soon as the prior suit is no longer pending.

It is not clear that the practical effect of the decision will be great, but it may in some cases open up clinicians to multiple, serial lawsuits over the same claims.

5. Pregnancy and employment discrimination
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” It also requires that employers treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

At stake. United Parcel Service (UPS) declined to give a pregnant employee a “light duty” accommodation during pregnancy so that she could avoid having to lift heavy packages. But it had given other employees just that kind of accommodation when they were injured or lost certification to drive a delivery truck. The suit claimed violation of the PDA.⁶

Final ruling. The Court held that UPS violated the PDA by giving some employees this accommodation but refusing it to pregnant workers who requested it.6 Once an organization voluntarily grants a particular accommodation to, for example, a temporarily injured worker, it may be required to provide similar accommodation to pregnant workers. The case probably will increase employment protection for pregnant women.

6. Children “testifying” in abuse cases
All states require physicians and teachers, among others, to report suspected child abuse. An ongoing question has been whether those reporters may be called to testify about what the child said at the time of abuse discovery/suspicion. This case involved a teacher, but it could as easily have been a physician.⁷

Key points of the case. Teachers found suspicious injuries on 3-year-old L.P. The child gave conflicting statements about what happened, but claimed that Clark had hurt him. At Clark’s criminal trial, L.P. did not testify, but the state wanted to introduce L.P.’s statements to the teachers as evidence of Clark’s guilt.

At stake. The question was whether or not this introduction would violate the right of Clark to “confront his accuser” as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Final ruling. All 9 justices said it was proper to allow L.P.’s statements to be introduced at trial.⁷ Essentially this was permitted because the primary purpose of L.P.’s statements was not to gather testimony to be presented at trial.

The final opinion creates incentives for some prosecutors to make abuse victims unavailable in order to allow their testimony by hearsay. Aside from the legal technicalities, the likelihood of wrongful convictions under such a system must be considered for the long run.

Other major 2015 Supreme Court decisions
- The Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriages and also accept such marriages performed in other states.¹ (The American Medical Association joined an amicus brief in this case.)
- The Court turned down the appeal of several inmates who had received lethal injection death sentences. They challenged the mix of drugs that Oklahoma planned to use to execute them.²
- In 2 cases justices went out of the way to raise questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty. This may suggest that the Court will take up this issue in the near future.^2,3
- Federal housing discrimination laws were expanded to cases in which there is “disparate impact” discrimination.⁴
- The Court narrowed prosecution for “threatening” statements in social network/Internet communications by holding that negligence in the communication is not sufficient for conviction under federal law.⁵
- The Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act with its power plant emission regulations because it failed to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.⁶

References
1. Obergefell et al v Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al, No. 14–556 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
2. Glossip et al v Gross et al, No. 14–7955 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
3. Davis, Acting Worden v Ayala, No. 13–1428 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1428_1a7d.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
4. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al v Inclusive Communities Project, Inc et al, No. 13–1371 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_8m58.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
5. Elonis v United States, No. 13–983 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7148.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.
6. Michigan et al v Environmental Protection Agency et al, No. 14–46 (2015). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_bqmc.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2015.

What’s coming in 2016
This term of the Supreme Court is a reminder of how important the decisions of the Court are to the work of physicians and ObGyns in particular. This trend is continuing—the Court already has, for the next term, accepted cases regarding abortion, contraception, and health care delivery. It will, therefore, be worthwhile to follow the developments at the nation’s highest court.

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.