American Enterprise Institute
King v. Burwell and three other cases before the Supreme Court concern whether individuals purchasing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act in states with no state insurance exchange should receive subsidies from the federal government.
If the Supreme Court overturns the subsidies, Congress will be under pressure to protect Americans who signed up for coverage on the assumption that it would be subsidized from the cost increases associated with this withdrawal of the federal funds.
Congress should enact a short-term subsidy plan to ease the transition and solve the problems created under the ACA by granting states the ability to opt into a better approach to reform.
Reuters reported recently that, “Despite the promise of coverage through the U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA), the number of people applying for non-compliant, short-term health insurance policies was up more than 100 percent in 2014.”
It’s true – more people than ever before are buying short-term, limited coverage health insurance.
But one part of the Reuters report was wrong: the word “despite.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner
ObamaCare enrollees are struggling to pay their premiums and facing steep price hikes ahead, but that’s only half of the battle they’re facing under the president’s health care law. According to two recent surveys, those with ObamaCare plans – and the subsidies that help pay for them – are still left with sky-high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs that force them to put off the care they need. Here’s more:
- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/even-obamacare-americans-find-health-insurance-too-expensive#sthash.c0zylX7H.dpuf
The Wall Street Journal
The Bush administration health policy band is getting back together — to tell states they will probably have to think about setting up their own insurance exchanges under the health law if the Supreme Court rules that is a condition of their residents continuing to get tax credits to help pay premiums.
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, acting general counsel Thomas Barker, chief of staff Rich McKeown, assistant secretary for legislation Vince Ventimiglia, deputy secretary Tevi Troy and the former acting Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Kerry Weems have signed an open letter to governors telling them there’s a good chance this will fall to the states to decide, and that they should get ready.
The Washington Post
With a Supreme Court decision looming that could lead to the loss of health insurance for millions of Americans, supporters and opponents of President Obama’s health-care law already are mobilizing for the next stage of the battle: influencing policy alternatives if the court upends a key component of the law.
The Wall Street Journal
The U.S. Census Bureau has published new estimates of health spending based on their somewhat obscure but important Quarterly Services Survey. Analysis of the survey data shows that health spending was 7.3% higher in the first quarter of 2015 than in the first quarter of last year. Hospital spending increased 9.2%.
The Federalist Society
This article will assess the legality of executive actions that the Administration may take after King v. Burwell to continue paying subsidies in these thirty-four states. I will not discuss the merits of the case, predict how the Court should construe the statute or IRS rule, or propose congressional modifications to the ACA. Rather, this analysis is premised on potential administrative fixes HHS could employ following an adverse ruling in King v. Burwell.
Later this month, the Supreme Court will likely announce its decision on King v. Burwell, the lawsuit which asserts tax credits currently being paid to health insurers in 34 to 37 states that use the federal health insurance exchange are illegal. If the Supreme Court stops these tax credits, over six million people will be required to pay the full premiums for their Obamacare policies. This will cause a crisis, which will demand a response by Congress and the president.
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court decides King v. Burwell -- a case regarding the Obama administration’s issuance of health insurance subsidies in violation of their own law -- the negative consequences for patients and taxpayers will continue absent thoughtful, patient-centered reform.
Wall Street Journal
House Republicans sent a clear signal Wednesday that they wouldn’t preserve the health law in its current form if the Supreme Court guts a key provision, and the Obama administration responded with equal clarity that the states and Congress would be the ones responsible for resolving any fallout.
GOP legislators and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell set out their messages at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Wednesday, during a week in which both sides are fine-tuning their strategies on the case.