One purpose of the individual mandate is to eliminate the market for self-insured healthcare transactions. It is well-established in this Court’s precedent that the elimination of an interstate commercial market is a constitutionally legitimate end for Congress to pursue under the Commerce Clause. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress may use any reasonably adapted means to accomplish constitutionally legitimate ends. The individual mandate is not only reasonably adapted but is quite elegant as a means of eliminating the market for self-insured healthcare transactions. The provision effectively encourages individuals to shift from the inefficient market for self-insured care to its more efficient substitute market for fully-insured care.
The question presented is whether the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution.
Abigail Moncrieff, Kevin Outterson, Kyle Thomson, David Arnold, Julia G. Mirabella & Wang Hao,
Brief Amici Curiae of Prescription Policy Choices, Professors of Law, and Professors of Health Policy in Support of Petitioners on the Minimum Coverage Provision in Department of Health & Human Services v. State of Florida
Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/243