Aging Groups Argue That Most Provisions Affecting Seniors Should Not Be Tied to Supreme Court's Ruling on Individual Mandate

Excerpt from PR Newswire: (click for entire article)

Six national aging groups filed a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court last Friday saying that there are extensive provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that are of "vital importance to the health and well-being of people 65 and older" and that Congress did not intend for any of them to be contingent on whether or not the minimum coverage provision (also called the individual mandate) was constitutional.

"The health and quality of life of many older Americans are already improving because of the health reform law," says National Senior Citizens Law Center Executive Director Paul Nathanson. "We don't believe Congress intended to let the elderly poor languish in nursing homes or be subject to abuse if the individual mandate was found unworkable."

The amicus brief was filed in the National Federation of Independent Business et al v Kathleen Sebelius et al and the State of Florida et al v Department of Health and Human Services et al cases which challenge the constitutionality of the health reform law. In those cases, the petitioners contend that all of the ACA should fall if the minimum coverage provision is invalidated by the Court.