The Federal government wants to leave doctors and hospitals on the hook for medical bills unpaid by the failed ObamaCare co-ops.
A top official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Congress that the government, not medical providers, has the first right to any remaining co-op funds. This CMS policy ignores a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision that says the federal government is next to last in line for payment in insurance cases, and policyholders should come first.
Twelve of the 24 co-ops funded through the ACA have failed and are going through the liquidation process. At least 800,000 people have had to find other coverage after their co-op policies were cancelled.
. . .
The recent lawsuit filed by the Health Republic Insurance Company of Oregon regarding ObamaCare’s “risk corridor” program raises the question: Does the federal government have a duty to defend the lawsuit? Could they confess that the plaintiffs are right, or, better still, settle the case for the face value? Nicholas Bagley of the University Of Michigan School Of Law does not think the feds will do that while they can still argue that the claims are unripe. But if the case gets past the initial procedural hurdles, they’ll be sorely tempted to cut a deal.
Six states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration over the Affordable Care Act.
The complaint that Texas, Wisconsin, Kansas, Louisiana, Indiana and Nebraska filed in the Northern District of Texas takes issue with the Health Insurance Providers Fee assessed to health insurers to cover federal subsidies.
The lawsuit says nothing in the Affordable Care Act’s language provided clear notice that states would also have to pay the fee.
“This notice was not even provided by rule but was ultimately provided by a private entity wielding legislative authority,” the suit says.
There’s not much more time to speculate about how the Supreme Court will handle health care-related cases without the late Justice Antonin Scalia. A number of them are fast approaching on the court’s calendar, including one scheduled for arguments Tuesday.
Legal experts say they expect the court will go ahead and hear those cases and others despite the conservative justice’s unexpected death late last week.
The case set to be argued Feb. 23 involves the penalties companies face for patent infringement and could have a significant impact on the medical device industry. And in two weeks, the court is scheduled to hear a major case over whether Texas has gone too far in regulating abortions.
Scalia exposed that in King v Burwell, the Court elevated politics over both the rule of law and the separation of powers.
In King, a six-justice majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged the operative statutory text authorizes those taxes and subsidies only in states that establish an Exchange. But because the majority determined ObamaCare would collapse without them, it ruled the IRS could continue to implement those taxes and subsidies. Scalia’s dissent exposed that, rather than give effect to Congress’ intent, the majority simply substituted its own policy preferences for those of the legislature.
The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who famously said the Affordable Care Act should be called “SCOTUScare,” leaves in limbo a number of health care-related cases. The news also quickly sparked a debate over who would replace him amid the presidential campaign.
The Supreme Court justices are considering a number of important health care cases focusing on topics including abortion and the ACA’s contraception mandate.
The court is also weighing a case about data sharing with potential implications for insurers and state health care reform efforts and another case with the potential to reduce—or increase—the number of False Claims Act suits brought against health care providers and other companies.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wasn’t a fan of the Affordable Care Act and opposed it when it came before the nation’s high court every time.
Known for his blunt writings, here are some highlights from a dissenting opinion he wrote, published June 15, 2015, in what was the high court’s second major decision upholding President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. Scalia wrote the following passages in the famous King vs. Burwell case on behalf of a three-vote minority that included Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The entire dissent can be read here.
Click through to read five of the best quotes from Scalia’s dissent.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to settle a widespread dispute between the Obama administration and religious non-profits over insurance coverage for birth control, which is sure to elevate issues of religious freedom and reproductive rights in next year’s presidential campaign.
The Pacific Legal Foundation filed an appeal Monday asking the Supreme Court to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act which argues that the ACA’s taxes are unconstitutional because they originated in a bill written by the Senate.
Under the Constitution’s Origination Clause, all bills that levy and raise taxes must begin in the House of Representatives. Contrary to this provision, the text of the ACA was written by the Senate and later adopted by the House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted an unrelated House bill, leaving only the bill number, and in its place, he inserted the 2,076 pages of the ACA.
The PLF contends that the ACA’s taxes were therefore unconstitutionally created in a bill written by the Senate.
In 2012, the Supreme Court decided in NFIB v. Sebelius that the individual mandate, a requirement in the ACA forcing Americans to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty, is indeed a tax. The Supreme Court did not however address the implications of the Origination Clause on this conclusion.
PLF’s lawsuit, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, specifically targets the individual mandate to prove that all of the ACA’s taxes are unconstitutional under the Origination Clause.
“Beyond its assault on healthcare freedom, Obamacare represents an attack on some core constitutional principles and protections for taxpayers,” according to PLF’s Principal Attorney Timothy Sandefur. “Obamacare raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, but it was enacted in violation of the Origination Clause, which was designed to safeguard against arbitrary and reckless taxation.”
Four of the nine justices must vote to hear the case before it is placed on the court’s docket.
View PLF’s petition for writ of certiorari here.
Given how unpersuasive some Obamacare rulings have been, it’s easy to become cynical. But both sides have won and lost on some big issues. Thus, it is a mistake to think that there are five justices who will always vote to uphold Obamacare. The Origination Clause challenge to Obamacare that the Supreme Court is being asked to review today, Sissel v. HHS, presents some truly novel issues, as the debate among appellate judges this summer demonstrates. It also justifies a review of ten myths about Obamacare litigation.