U.S. Legal System, Rulemaking, and the Healthcare Law (Essay Sample)

U.S Legal System, Rulemaking and the Healthcare Law
Name
Name of Institute
U.S Legal System, Rulemaking and the Healthcare Law
The case, Simkins v Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital (1963) engaged the American government on the use of public funds to expand segregated hospital care. The case was pursued because it was a legal strategy against policies based on racism which was an essential element in a national campaign to diminish segregatioin and discrimination in health care delivery in the United States of America. The Simkins v Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital case first filed for the suit at the Distrcit Court level but it was dismissed but the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Team appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court (Reynolds, 2004). The Chief Justice Simon E. Sobeloff oversaw the case at the court with the assistance of other judges like Herbert S. Boreman, J.Spencer Bell, Albert V. Bryan and Clement F. Haynsworth. The lawyers of the NAACP led by their lead legal counsel Mr. Conrad Odell Pearson argued for a state action on behalf of the plantiffs protecting them against discrimination under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S Constitution.
The opinion of the lower courts strongly supported the discriminatory system and policies in hospital care. The lower hospitals supported the Assistant Attorney General’s stance on segregating black dentists, physicians and patients. The stance of legal decisions that supported discrimination of healthcare to African Americans was overturned by Judge Sobeloff when he garnered the votes of Judges Bell and Bryan. The federal law, thw Hill-Burton Act which was initiated by the Senators of the Southern States like Senator Lister Hill and Senator Harold Burton advocated for the inclusion of all people in hospital care arguing for the equal distribution of hospital beds for each ethnic population group or what was referred to as “separate but equal” (Clayton & Michael, 2000). However, the “separate but equal” clause which was developed under the assumption of hospital care under the Hill-Burton Act violated the American constitution of racial integration in public facilities like public healthcare centers. The 14th and 5th Amendment of the U.S Constitution played a significant role in deciding the Simkins case because it supported racial integration in all public institutions which received federal funding from the federal government. In addition, the federal government concurred with the notion that the use of federal funds in a discriminatory manner was in violation of the American constitution and all patients regardless of race were entitled to quality healthcare services and privileges. The Simkins case was taken to both the District Court and the U.S Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit by the NCAAP Legal Defense Fund lawyers who challenged the federal government’s use of public funds to expand and maintain segregated healthcare in public hospitals (Reynolds, 2004).
The case issue was argued that Southern State public hospitals practiced segregation despite the hospitals getting funds from the federal government. For instance, only 6% of hospitals offered African Americans medical services without discrimination while 31% did not admit Blacks under any circumstance while 48% had segregated wards for both Whites and Blacks (Reynolds, 2004). Denying the minority group the right and privilege of medical care in public hospitals which were funded by the federal government was against the U.S Constitution. This was particularly common for African Americans who were sidelined because they were refered to as the colored inferior people. The Simkins case was a template case that the NCAAP Legal Defense team used in order to gain leverage in arguing other court cases that involved discriminatory cases regarding public hospitals and healthcare facilities. The case strengthened other court cases such as the Eaton v James Walker Memorial Hospital (1961) whereby the NCAAP lawyers argued that the memorial hospital was public, enjoyed tax free privileges, participated in the Hill-Burton nationwide plan for hospital beds and used funds under the Defense Public Works Act (Reynolds, 2004). Therefore, James Walker Memorial Hospital discriminatory practices was violation of national laws and the Constitution. The case was aimed at scrapping off racism in all public institutions within the American border but it was limited in its approach because the United States was not ready for racial integration (Reynolds, 2004). For instance, after President Lyndon B. Johnson approved the Civil Rights Act and formed a federal agency which drafted new regulations for TitleVI that strictly oversaw the distribution of funds to public institutions that supported integration of minority group (Hoffman, 2012).
The ruling of the Simkins case through the federal agency known as HEW drafted regulaitons which ensured that all institutio...