Search

United States' courts have played a limited, yet key, role in shaping health equity in three areas of law: racial discrimination, disability discrimination, and constitutional rights. Executive and administrative action has been much more instrumental than judicial decisions in advancing racial equality in health care. Courts have been reluctant to intervene on racial justice because overt discrimination has largely disappeared, and the Supreme Court has interpreted civil rights laws in a fashion that restricts judicial authority to address more subtle or diffused forms of disparate impact. In contrast, courts have been more active in limiting disability discrimination by expanding the conditions that are considered disabling and by articulating and applying the operative concepts "reasonable accommodation" and "other qualified" in the context of both treatment and insurance coverage decisions. Finally, regarding constitutional rights, courts have had limited opportunity to intervene because, outside of specially protected arenas such as reproduction, constitutional law gives government wide discretion to define health and safety goals and methods. Thus, courts have had only a limited role in shaping health equity in the United States. It remains to be seen whether this will change under the Affordable Care Act or whatever health reform measure might replace it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]