On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for California v. Texas, a case that will potentially decide the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).
Continue Reading Texas v. California: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments About the Constitutionality of the ACA

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and alongside it the high probability of a conservative successor to the open seat she left behind, is likely to shift the Court substantially to the right. Among the most notable cases that will likely be presented before the newly constituted Court is the pending challenge to the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”).
Continue Reading The Death of RBG…and the ACA?

On June 24, 2020, House Democrats proposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act (H.R. 1425) (the “Proposed Act”), legislation aimed at reinforcing the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) by: (i) lowering American’s health coverage costs; (ii) allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices; (iii) expanding coverage by incentivizing 14 holdout states to accept the ACA’s Medicaid expansion; (iv) expanding affordable coverage to vulnerable populations; (v) honing in on “junk” health plans that provide inadequate coverage; and (vi) strengthening protections for people with pre-existing health conditions. A fact sheet on the provisions of the Proposed Act is available here.
Continue Reading House Democrats Propose New Legislation to Bolster the ACA

The Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling on April 27, 2020, directed at a more than $12 billion challenge related to the temporary risk corridors program established by the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”).  Challenges were brought under multiple consolidated cases, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health v. United States, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina v. United States (the “Consolidated Cases”).  In its decision, the Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Issues Long Awaited Ruling on Affordable Care Act Risk Corridors Program

January 30th, 2020 marked a dramatic change in Medicaid funding, as the Trump Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) showcased a plan, called the “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” that would permit states to cap Medicaid spending. This was a blow to the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which expanded federal spending for low income individuals that did not previously qualify for the program.
Continue Reading ACA Medicaid Expansion Weakens: Trump Administration Unveils Optional Plan for Block Grants

On December 18th, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals released a long-awaited decision on a significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), affirming a lower-court ruling that we discussed in a previous post. In the lower-court ruling, the Federal District Court judge determined that the ACA’s individual mandate, which was reduced to $0 as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, is no longer considered a tax and therefore Congress no longer has constitutional authority to enforce the mandate. Going one step further, the Federal District Court judge found that the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the ACA, and thus held that the whole law is unconstitutional.
Continue Reading Update to Texas v. United States: Fifth Circuit Strikes Individual Mandate, Remands on Severability

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reached its widely anticipated decision in Texas vs. Azar, ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate is unconstitutional as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017’s elimination of the mandate’s financial penalty. The Court has remanded the case to the District Court to further address the question (known as the “severability” question) of whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are lawful in light of the decision regarding the individual mandate.
Continue Reading JUST IN: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reaches Decision on Latest Case Involving Constitutionality of ACA

One of the most controversial taxes of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is in danger of repeal. The tax colloquially known as the “Cadillac Tax” was supposed to take effect in 2018, but Congress has delayed it twice. With the tax now slated to take effect in 2022, opponents of the tax have taken the opportunity to attempt to repeal it for good. On July 17, 2019, the House of Representatives overwhelming voted, 419-6, to approve the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019, which would abolish the Cadillac Tax. A Senate companion bill with 61 co-sponsors, including 32 Republicans and 28 Democrats, shows that the bill is unlikely to encounter much resistance if it is brought to a vote.
Continue Reading Bipartisan Push To Repeal ACA’s Cadillac Tax

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, the Trump Administration issued the Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance Final Rule (the “Final Rule”), expanding the coverage length of “short-term, limited-duration insurance” policies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).
Continue Reading The Trump Administration Allows for Longer “Short-Term” Health Insurance Policies, but Coverage Stays the Same

On February 26, 2018, twenty states (the “Plaintiffs”) jointly filed a lawsuit[1] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas requesting that the court strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”), as unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs’ suit gained support from the White House last week, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan on June 7, 2018 (the “Letter”), indicating that the Attorney General’s Office, with approval from President Trump, will not defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate – 26 U.S.C. 5000(A)(a) – and will argue that “certain provisions” of the ACA are inseverable from that provision.[2] The Letter indicates that this is “a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense” of the individual mandate, reasoning that the Justice Department has declined to defend statutes in the past when the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional and clearly indicated that it should not be defended.
Continue Reading Following Repeal of the Individual Mandate, Twenty States Challenge the Affordable Care Act