But that provision also did not last. Under California’s severability framework, the remaining provisions must be grammatically, functionally, and arbitrarily severable from the removed portions of a statute. The court focused on the voluntariness issue, which asks whether the legislature would have passed the provision on its own, and concluded that it would not. About 90% of affected patients are already on public insurance. Telling them about all their options, including the availability of private coverage and premium assistance, may actually push some people toward private plans, which is contrary to the legislature’s intent. This problem was made worse by the fact that the anti-steering provision of the law, which prohibited dialysis clinics from guiding, directing, or advising patients regarding a specific coverage program option or health care service plan contract, had already been struck down at the district court level and was not challenged on appeal.
Ninth Circuit strikes down California law protecting insurance risk pools & more related News Here
