A project of the Galen Institute

Issue: "Exchanges"

Here’s What Obamacare’s Authors said They Actually Meant

Emily Badger, Washington Post
Tue, 2014-07-22
"The two contradictory appeals court decisions that cast the future of Obamacare into uncertainty Tuesday morning largely center on a question of intent: When the Affordable Care Act was conceived and drafted, did its creators mean to withhold health care subsidies from people living in states that refused to set up their own exchanges?. This latest legal challenge focuses on four words in the mammoth law authorizing tax credits for individuals who buy insurance through exchanges "established by the States." Thiry-six states declined to set up their own exchanges — far more than the law's backers anticipated — and in those states, consumers have been shopping for health care on exchanges run instead by the federal government. Now the D.C.

Appeals Courts Split On Legality Of Subsidies For Affordable Care Act

Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News
Tue, 2014-07-22
"Two U.S. Appeals Courts Tuesday reached opposite conclusions about the legality of subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, a key part of the law that brings down the cost of coverage for millions of Americans. In Washington, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Internal Revenue Service lacked the authority to allow subsidies to be provided in exchanges not run by the states. That 2-1 ruling in Halbig v. Burwell could put at risk the millions of people who bought insurance in the 36 states where these online insurance marketplaces are run by the federal government. Judge Thomas Griffith, writing the majority opinion, said they concluded "that the ACA unambiguously restricts" the subsidies to "Exchanges 'established by the state.' " But within hours, a unanimous three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., ruled exactly the other way in King v.

No, the Halbig case isn't going to destroy Obamacare

Ezra Klein, Vox
Tue, 2014-07-22
"The Halbig case could destroy Obamacare . But it won't. The Supreme Court simply isn't going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar. As Adrianna McIntyre explains, the Halbig case holds that Obamacare's subsidies are illegal in the 36 states where the federal government runs (or partly runs) the exchange. The plaintiffs rely on an unclearly worded sentence in the law to argue that Congress never intended to provide subsidies in federally-run exchanges and so the subsidies that are currently being provided in those 36 states are illegal and need to stop immediately. The point of Obamacare is to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford it This is plainly ridiculous. The point of Obamacare is to subsidize insurance for those who can't afford it.

After Health Law Rulings, Here Are Possible Next Steps

"Margot Sanger-Katz, NY Times
Tue, 2014-07-22
"We now have two federal appeals courts that have issued conflicting rulings on a major provision of the Affordable Care Act. Those decisions are not the final word on whether residents of some states will be able to continue receiving financial assistance to buy health insurance. Here are some possible next steps:"

Court Upholds the Rule of Law

Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
Tue, 2014-07-22
"The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the rule of law in its decision that the health law does not allow tax subsidies to be distributed through the federal government’s health insurance exchange. The Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service issued regulations in 2012 authorizing the flow of funds after two-thirds of the states opted not to create their own exchanges, thereby defaulting to the federal exchange. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court ruled that the law plainly states that tax credits to subsidize health insurance are to be available only through an “Exchange established by the State.” Shortly after the DC Circuit decision was announced, the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a separate case that the law’s language does allow the subsidies to be distributed through the federal exchanges. This sets up a very likely Supreme Court challenge."

Former top Cover Oregon Official Won $67,000 Settlement after Threatening Lawsuit

Nick Budnick, The Oregonian
Tue, 2014-07-22
"Gov. John Kitzhaber has defended his handling of the Cover Oregon debacle by noting that he engaged in "cleaning our own house," including holding three officials "accountable" after the health insurance exchange website did not work. But newly released records reveal that one of those three, Triz delaRosa of Cover Oregon, didn't go quietly. After Kitzhaber called for delaRosa, the exchange's chief operating officer, to be fired on March 20, she warned the state she'd sue if she was fired, according to documents obtained under Oregon's public records law. She laid blame for the exchange fiasco on Oregon Health Authority mismanagement, as well as Kitzhaber's staff, for failing to confront problems Cover Oregon reported after taking over the project in May 2013. As a result, delaRosa received a $67,714.90 settlement and continued drawing a salary through May 16. In return, she agreed to say nothing negative about the state."

Washington Health Exchange Sounds the Alarm, Questions Deloitte

Patrick Marshall, Seattle Times
Tue, 2014-07-22
"One message came through loud and clear at today’s meeting of the Washington Health Benefit Exchange’s Operations Committee: It may not be time to panic about the health exchange’s problem-riddled invoicing and payments system, but it is time to sound the alarm and get all hands on deck. “We are really out of rope on this one,” Chief of Staff Pam MacEwan told the committee. “We need this to be fixed a while ago. We don’t have the patience of the public or the carriers on this anymore.” Software problems have prevented payments for up to 6,000 consumer accounts from posting properly and being reported to insurers, resulting in some consumers being told they don’t have coverage. Beth Walter, operations director, noted the exchange had received a commitment from Deloitte, the exchange’s primary contractor, to “engage additional resources on their side.” “What does that mean?” asked a committee member. “More people,” Walter replied."

Judge Tosses Wisconsin Senator's Health Care Suit

M.L. Johnson, Associated Press
Tue, 2014-07-22
"MILWAUKEE (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday dismissed a U.S. senator's lawsuit challenging a requirement that congressional members and their staffs to obtain government-subsidized health insurance through small business exchanges, saying the senator had no grounds to sue. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, filed the lawsuit in January after the Office of Personnel Management decided months earlier that lawmakers and their staffs should continue to receive health care benefits covering about 75 percent of their premium costs after leaving the health insurance program for federal workers. Johnson said the decision would make him decide which staff members must buy insurance through an exchange, potentially creating conflict in his office. He also said it forced him to participate in a program that he believed was illegal and that it could make voters view him negatively because his staff received health insurance subsidies the general public did not. But U.S.

BREAKING: D.C. Appeals Court Overturns Subsidies For Federal Exchange

Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post
Tue, 2014-07-22
"A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states. The ruling, if upheld, could potentially be more damaging to the law than last month’s Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who argued that the language of the law barred the government from giving subsidies to people in states that chose not to set up their own insurance marketplaces. Twenty-seven states, most with Republican leaders who oppose the law, decided against setting up marketplaces, and another nine states partially opted out. The government could request an “en banc” hearing, putting the case before the entire appeals court, and the question ultimately may end up at the Supreme Court.

How Obamacare’s Progress Makes Expanding Coverage Harder

Drew Altman for Wall Street Journal
Mon, 2014-07-21
"The Affordable Care Act’s success meeting its initial enrollment goals and the repair of HealthCare.gov seem to have calmed the political waters for Obamacare. But the job of enrolling the uninsured gets harder, not easier, because the remaining uninsured will generally be tougher to reach. Recent surveys show, roughly in line with expectations, that 8 million to 9.5 million fewer adults are uninsured compared with last year before the Affordable Care Act went into effect. Specific data are not yet available for uninsured children who probably got covered as well, and an earlier provision of the health-care law that allowed people to stay on their parents’ insurance up to age 26 is thought to have lowered the number of uninsured young adults by as many as 3 million. But tens of millions of Americans are not yet covered. Those who enrolled last year during the first open-enrollment season were more likely to want coverage and were best able to navigate the process to get it.

ObamaCare Watch Weekly

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

Check out Jim Capretta's new book.

ObamaCare Primer