Legal Advocacy
Legal Advocacy
Why is legal advocacy important?
For many cancer patients—especially those who are underserved, uninsured, underinsured, or members of marginalized communities—healthcare access and affordability are life-and-death issues. LLS recognizes that public policies have a major impact on the lives of blood cancer patients, and we must engage with all branches of government to influence change.
Policy changes often begin in the legislative branch, where LLS’s grassroots advocacy team as well as state and federal government affairs teams influence lawmakers to pass laws that expand patients’ access to treatment. Recognizing that the work to transform policies does not end once a law is passed, our legal advocacy continues in the executive and judicial branches.
As part of that legal advocacy, LLS connects with administrative agencies and Congressional oversight committees. We also submit public comments on proposed rules to ensure that policies best serve patients and honor how the legislation was written.
Courts are increasingly charged with weighing in on legal disputes pertaining to health policy. When the laws and regulations that impact patients are litigated, LLS leads and joins amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in cases filed in federal and state courts across the country to ensure the patient perspective is considered.
What are our priorities?
LLS engages legal advocacy on the following issues:
- Making comprehensive coverage more accessible
- Fighting against insurance-like products (“junk plans”) that leave patients exposed to financial ruin
- Strengthening government-subsidized health insurance via Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Affordable Care Act
- Protecting patients from rising healthcare costs
- Promoting price transparency
- Promoting competition among drugmakers, doctors, and hospitals
- Curtailing unfair and deceptive practices and predatory conduct
- Ensuring a fair, transparent, and responsive government
- Defending due process, equal rights, and access to justice
Who are our pro bono partners?
LLS is grateful to the following firms, who have generously donated their services by drafting and filing amicus briefs on our behalf and in partnership with other patient advocacy organizations.
To learn more about pro bono opportunities with LLS, please email advocacy@lls.org.
- LLS led amicus briefs filed in the following cases to defend the No Surprises Act and its implementing rules that protect patients from surprise medical bills and attempt to contain healthcare costs.
- Texas Medical Association v. HHS, et al.
- TMA I - District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- TMA II - District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- TMA III - District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Daniel Haller, et al. v. HHS, et al. in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- AMA/AHA v. HHS, et al. in the D.C. District Court
- Association of Air Medical Services v. HHS, et al. in the D.C. District Court
- Texas Medical Association v. HHS, et al.
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. v. FDA, et al. -- LLS led amicus briefs filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court to sound the alarm about the risk of courts overriding the FDA’s expert decisions concerning the safety and efficacy of drugs, treatments, and their conditions of use.
- Data Marketing Partnership v. Dept. of Labor -- LLS led an amicus brief filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to educate the court on the danger to patients if non-ACA-compliant plans are allowed to avoid state and ACA regulations that combat fraud, prevent insolvency, and secure the health insurance benefits that patients need.
- Braidwood Management v. Becerra -- LLS joined amicus briefs filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to defend the ACA coverage mandate for certain preventive services without cost-sharing.
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo -- LLS joined an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court will decide whether to overrule the Chevron doctrine, a bedrock administrative law principle that requires courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
- 25 patient and provider groups applaud Supreme Court ruling, though express concern about other plaintiffs keeping FDA authority challenge alive
- 31 patient and provider groups warn that Mifepristone ruling threatens all FDA-approved drugs
- 33 patient and provider groups applaud Supreme Court Ruling, urge courts to preserve FDA’s authority
- 25 patient and provider groups urge Supreme Court to preserve FDA authority
- Scholars, Advocates Tell Justices Mifepristone Limits Must Go - Law360