Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol__24_issue_1?pg=130
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:56:02+00:00

Document:
Finally, an earlier section outlining responsibilities of the Marketplaces when faced with incomplete or inconsistent information in an application states: “APPEALS PROCESS.—The Exchange shall also notify each person receiving notice under this paragraph of the appeals processes established under subsection (f).” 287 Although this earlier section does not itself refer to individuals or a right to appeal, the notice requirement supports a reading of the ACA that individuals have a right to an appeal. Therefore, although not referred to in the signifiers courts usually look for, a fair reading of the text reveals a congressional intent to provide individuals with the right to appeal an adverse determination made by the Marketplace, but leaves the details of how to structure that appeal to HHS.
B. Courts Should Recognize Delegations of Rights-Making Authority to Administrative Agencies As the comparison above illustrates, the current doctrine governing § 1983 requires a clear statement by Congress that individuals have a private- (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that regulations impose more precise obligations than the text of the ADA and that § 1983 could be used to enforce those regulations that impose the details of the more general statutory right).
284. 42 U.S. C. A. § 18081(f) (West, WestlawNext through P.L. 113-163 (excluding P.L. 113-128)).
285. 42 U.S. C. A. § 18081(f)(1)( B).
286. 42 U.S. C. A. § 18081(f)(1)( A)-( B).
287. 42 U.S. C. § 18081(e)( C)(West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-163 (excluding P.L. 113-128)).

References: § 1983
 § 1983
 § 18081
 § 18081
 § 18081
 § 18081