In the next few days and weeks we’ll see the first wave of reactions from health plans – and unsubsidized Affordable Care Act exchange shoppers, because of premium increases – to President Trump’s decision to cut off immediately the cost-sharing subsidies to health plans participating in the exchanges.
In my blog posts, I usually try to highlight stories that have a lesson – something that you can take and apply to your own reporting on health reform.
This story by the Washington Post’s Jenna Johnson doesn’t have such a clear-cut, practical “how-to” aspect. But I’ve found myself thinking about her opening anecdote again and again since I read it, so I figured it’s time to share. Continue reading
For those of us who cover health policy nationally or in our states and local communities, it has been a dizzying couple of months.
The “Day 1” slam dunk repeal that President Donald J. Trump and the Republicans who control the House and the Senate promised turned into a prolonged and uncertain mélange of repeal, replace, repair, implode, explode – not to mention beg, negotiate, threaten and wheedle. Continue reading
The court ruled that the subsidies were integral to the functioning of insurance markets under the ACA, and that Congress constructed the law with that in mind. The Court did not use an alternative legal argument to uphold the subsidies – saying that the law was ambiguous but the executive branch (in this case the IRS) had the right to interpret it so that subsidies are available in both state and federal exchanges. This is not a minor distinction – that latter interpretation (used by one of the lower courts) would have meant that a future administration could come in and change the subsidy policy. The 6-3 court ruling bars a future administration from doing so. (A future Congress could still change the law regarding subsidies but a future administration couldn’t just flip a switch and stop them.) Continue reading
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