Critics warn of ‘unintended consequences’ of Ohio ACA ballot measure

Opponents of a November ballot initiative that would create a state constitutional amendment forbidding enforcement of the individual mandate say that because of the way the ballot language is written, it could have far-reaching consequences for broader health regulations in the state (Source: “Issue 3’s reach is too wide, foes say,” Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 2, 2011).

The amendment would forbid any federal, state or local law that would “compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system,” and applies to all laws passed after March 19, 2010 (the day before federal health reform was signed into law). 

The Innovation Ohio report  (pdf, 7 pages) argues that the broadness of the language in the law could lead to unintended consequences, asserting that it could limit public health monitoring and even threaten recently passed state legislation such as regulations on “pill mills” and bans on late-term abortion, among others.

The ballot language was written by conservative advocacy group the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, whose leaders have, while not entirely accepting the Case Western analysis, stated that the purpose of the amendment is broader than stopping the individual mandate provision. 

On its website, the organization’s president Maurice Thompson said, “This amendment, once enacted will not only protect Ohioans’ health care freedom from state and local government, but will also place Ohioans in the nation’s strongest position to challenge invasive elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  This will be the only provision in the nation that explicitly creates a state constitutional right to health care freedom.”