Tag Archives: SCOTUS

Experts make some predictions about SCOTUS ruling

Carla K. Johnson

About Carla K. Johnson

Carla K. Johnson (@CarlaKJohnson) is a medical writer at The Associated Press and has covered health and medicine since 2001. A former member of AHCJ's board of directors, she leads the Chicago AHCJ chapter.

Photo: Carla K. JohnsonBruce Japsen, Dan Yunker, Marilyn Serafini and Stephani Becker (l to r) discussed the possibility of 8 million people losing health insurance, during a Chicago AHCJ chapter event.

Photo: Carla K. JohnsonBruce Japsen, Dan Yunker, Marilyn Serafini and Stephani Becker (l to r) discussed the possibility of 8 million people losing health insurance, during an AHCJ Chicago chapter event.

Will fretting over King v. Burwell be remembered in the same breath as worries over Y2K?

Or will the calamity of 8 million people losing health insurance come true if the plaintiffs win their case at the U.S. Supreme Court? A ruling is expected in June.

With Alliance for Health Reform’s Marilyn Serafini acting as moderator, the Chicago chapter of AHCJ gathered on May 13 for a panel discussion on “The outlook for health insurance subsidies.” Continue reading

Under­standing, explaining primary issues of King v. Burwell

Joanne Kenen

About Joanne Kenen

Joanne Kenen, (@JoanneKenen) the health editor at Politico, is AHCJ’s topic leader on health reform and curates related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on health reform resources and tip sheets at joanne@healthjournalism.org. Follow her on Facebook.

Photo by dbking via Flickr

Photo by dbking via Flickr

With oral arguments in King v. Burwell scheduled for tomorrow, the Supreme Court will likely rule in late June.

The case challenges whether subsidies, in the form of tax credits, can go to people in states using the federal exchange, or only to those in the states running their own health insurance marketplaces.

After the state cases and 2012 National Federation of Independent Business case, it is the third case that poses an existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. (Hobby Lobby and other contraception-related cases wouldn’t unspool the structure of the whole ACA, only that aspect of women’s preventive health care.)

This case isn’t about whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. (The 2012 case was.) This is about interpreting the text, and whether the language of the law allows the subsidies in the federal exchange states.

Learn more about the landmark Supreme Court case in this new tip sheet.

SCOTUS decision on teeth-whitening business may hold wider implications for medical boards

Mary Otto

About Mary Otto

Mary Otto, a Washington, D.C.-based freelancer, is AHCJ's topic leader on oral health and the author of "Teeth: The Story of Beauty, Inequality, and the Struggle for Oral Health in America." She can be reached at mary@healthjournalism.org.

Image by waldopepper via Flickr

Image by waldopepper via Flickr

Lisa Schencker of Modern Healthcare  and Anne Blythe of the Raleigh News & Observer were among the first reporters to get the news out.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the North Carolina state dental board does not have the authority to regulate teeth-whitening businesses.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices found the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, which is comprised mostly of dentists, illegally quashed competition from non-dentists who sought to open teeth-whitening shops in the state. The decision, which upheld a lower court’s ruling, has the potential to impact other professional licensing boards across the country, experts say. Continue reading

Experts weigh in on covering the SCOTUS challenge

Joanne Kenen

About Joanne Kenen

Joanne Kenen, (@JoanneKenen) the health editor at Politico, is AHCJ’s topic leader on health reform and curates related material at healthjournalism.org. She welcomes questions and suggestions on health reform resources and tip sheets at joanne@healthjournalism.org. Follow her on Facebook.

Photo: Seth Borenstein, Associated Press/New York UniversityPhil Galewitz, of Kaiser Health News; Tom Goldstein, an attorney and founder of SCOTUSblog; Christine Eibner, a senior economist at Rand Corp.; and Thomas Miller, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (left to right) discussed how to cover Burwell vs. King Supreme Court Case during a chapter event at the NYU Washington, D.C., Center on Feb. 18.

Photo: Seth Borenstein, Associated Press/New York UniversityPhil Galewitz, of Kaiser Health News; Tom Goldstein, an attorney and founder of SCOTUSblog; Christine Eibner, a senior economist at Rand Corp.; and Thomas Miller, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (left to right) discussed how to cover King v. Burwell at the NYU Washington, D.C., Center on Feb. 18.

The Washington, D.C., chapter of the Association of Health Care Journalists had a session last week about the upcoming King v. Burwell case that will go before the Supreme Court challenging whether the Affordable Care Act subsidies can flow through the federal exchanges.

More than 30 people attended the event at New York University’s D.C. campus, including some students and faculty, and it was mentioned in Politico Pulse. Seth Borenstein, a science writer for The Associated Press and adjunct professor, helped organize and co-host the session. Kaiser Health News reporter Phil Galewitz, who leads the D.C. chapter, and Margot Sanger-Katz, a health writer with The New York Times, spoke to students after the event about how journalists have covered the Affordable Care Act.

A ruling for King would affect people in 34 states. Three other states – Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon – are using HealthCare.gov technology but are running enough of their own exchange to be a sort of hybrid. Briefs for both sides filed in the case agree that it will affect 34 states, not 37.

We’re assembling a tip sheet with more resources on the case, but here are some highlights from the event. Continue reading