First Edition: December 14, 2010

Today's headlines detail yesterday's ruling by a federal court judge in Virginia that strikes at a key part of the health law.

Kaiser Health News: Insuring Your Health: Few Seniors have Long-Term Care Insurance
In her latest Kaiser Health News consumer column, Michelle Andrews writes: "People don't like to think about what will happen if they become too ill or infirm to manage on their own. Experts say that partly explains why sales of long-term-care insurance policies are so anemic; only about 10 percent of seniors have such coverage" (Andrews, 12/14). Watch the accompanying video.

KHN Video And Transcript: 'Individual Mandate' In health Law Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules
Lawyer and journalist Stuart Taylor discusses today's development in health care reform. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia struck down a key part of the new health law, saying that the mandate on most Americans to buy health coverage is unconstitutional (Kaiser Health News, 12/13).

KHN: Americans Opinions Of Health Law Shifts - Just A Little
Kaiser Health News staff writer Aimee Miles writes: "Nine months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, Americans remain just as divided over the federal health care overhaul as they were in the weeks immediately following its passage, a tracking poll released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests" (Miles, 12/13).

KHN: Want To Avoid Unnecessary Tests? Stick To One ER, Researchers Say
Kaiser Health News staff writer Amita Parashar reports: "Nearly one in three Massachusetts adults with multiple ER trips visited separate hospitals -- some upwards of five -- creating a host of dangerous and costly problems because full health information is not always shared between hospitals, according to a study published today by the Archives of Internal Medicine" (Parashar, 12/13).

The New York Times:  Judge Voids Key Element Of Obama Health Care Law
A federal judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first judge to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below (Sack, 12/13).

Los Angeles Times: Key Healthcare Provision Voided By Federal Judge
Declaring a core part of the new healthcare law unconstitutional, a federal judge in Virginia has launched President Obama's signature domestic achievement into a gantlet of conservative-leaning courts that will almost certainly conclude at the Supreme Court just as the 2012 election is cresting (Levey and Savage, 12/13).

NPR: Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Part Of Health Law
A federal district court judge in Virginia has handed the new health law a setback. The judge has ruled that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in requiring most people to either get health insurance or pay a penalty (Rovner, 12/13).

The Washington Post: Federal Judge In Virginia Strikes Down Part Of Health-Care Law
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for the government to compel Americans to buy health insurance, marking the first time a court has struck down any facet of the massive new law to overhaul the nation's health-care system (Helderman and Goldstein, 12/14).

USA Today: Health Law Loses In Court Challenge
The first judicial ruling against a key part of President Obama's landmark health care law has boosted efforts by opponents who want it repealed, stripped of funding or struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, a battle that could take years (Wolf and Biskupic, 12/13).

The New York Times: Law Will Proceed, Administration Says
A court decision striking down a central provision of the new health care law will not disrupt efforts to carry it out, even though the ruling could increase confusion and embolden critics, Obama administration officials and employers said Monday (Pear and Abelson, 12/13).

The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire: Republicans Cheer Health Care Ruling
Republicans seized on Monday's ruling by a federal judge in Virginia that a central plank of President Barack Obama's health care law - requiring most Americans to carry insurance - violates the Constitution (O'Connor, 12/13).

The Washington Post: Fate Of Health-Care Law Likely To Be Decided By Supreme Court
Perhaps the only issue on which opponents and supporters of the health-care law can agree is that its fate will probably be decided by the Supreme Court (Aizenman, 12/13).

The Wall Street Journal: Court Strikes At Health Law
A federal court ruled Monday that a key part of the health-care overhaul violates the Constitution, dealing the first legal setback to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment (Adamy, 12/13).

The New York Times: Years Of Wrangling Lie Ahead For Health Law
By contradicting two prior opinions, Monday's court ruling in Virginia against the Obama health care law highlighted both the novelty of the constitutional issues and the difficulty of forging consensus among judges who bring differences in experience, philosophy and partisan background to the bench (Sack, 12/13).

The New York Times: News Analysis: Just One Ruling, But An Outsize One
By the numbers, President Obama is beating opponents of his signature health care bill two to one in federal court. Of the three district court judges who have ruled on the merits of constitutional challenges to the landmark Affordable Care Act, two have sided with Mr. Obama (Stolberg, 12/13).

The New York Times: Panel Set To Study Safety Of Electronic Patient Data
Almost two years ago, President Obama pledged $19 billion in stimulus incentives to help convert the nation's doctors and hospitals to using a paperless system of electronic health records intended to improve the quality of care and reduce costs. But the conversion is still a slow work in progress (Freudenheim, 12/13).

Los Angeles Times: UC Regents Seek To Cut Retirees' Pension Eligibility And Health Benefits
University of California regents approved controversial rollbacks in pension and retiree health benefits Monday, including raising the earliest retirement age for future employees to 55, to help plug huge financial gaps in the university's plans (Gordon, 12/14).