Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Waiting Game For States, Consumers As Supreme Court Weighs Subsidies
Millions of Americans could lose their insurance if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against President Barack Obama on his health-care law. And with the decision due in the next two weeks, the government has no backup plan. The court will say whether tax subsidies under Obamacare that make insurance more affordable for 6.4 million people in 34 states are legal. If it decides they aren’t, that would trigger a high-stakes debate between the administration and Congress over how to respond. Most of the states have no answer either. (Sink, 6/17)
The White House claims it has no contingency plan if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare subsidies in 34 states that rely on HealthCare.gov rather than operate their own exchanges. Congress is so deeply divided that Republicans don’t even agree among themselves on what to do if 6.4 million Americans see the subsidies vanish. That could leave the whole mess up to the states — and they don’t have an easy remedy either. The 34 states would have to figure out how to establish their own exchanges to keep the subsidies flowing. Some red states insist they won’t even try to fix what they think is a Washington problem, meaning the coverage gap between red and blue states could become even deeper. (Pradhan, 6/17)
The state is in a holding pattern about whether it would move to set up a state-run health insurance exchange as it waits on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case that threatens tax credits for more than 150,000 Tennesseans. With less than two weeks left in the Supreme Court's annual term when it releases decisions, Gov. Bill Haslam said his administration wants to see what comes down from the nine justices before making future plans. (Fletcher & Boucher, 6/16)
More than 126,500 Arizona residents could lose health-insurance coverage if the U.S. Supreme Court this month rejects the federal government's method of helping people pay for health insurance. The case, King v. Burwell, examines whether Affordable Care Act subsidies that help offset monthly health insurance premiums are allowed only in marketplaces that are "established by the state." (Alltucker, 6/16)
If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare subsidies in federal exchanges, 91,000 of Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart’s constituents would lose financial assistance — more than any other congressional district across 14 southern states, according to data released Tuesday by Families USA. (Demko, 6/16)
Elsewhere, KHN looks closely at the language in question in the law, and South Floridians are already losing their coverage over paperwork snafus --
In an analysis for Kaiser Health News, Stuart Taylor Jr. writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue a decision this month in a case that could again threaten a key aspect of President Barack Obama’s health law. But this time around, unlike three years ago when the court rejected a constitutional challenge to the law’s individual mandate, the case, King v. Burwell, focuses primarily on statutory interpretation." (Taylor, 6/17)
Michel River’s application for an Obamacare insurance plan ran smoothly. He signed up with an agent in November, submitted supporting income documents and started paying his monthly premium of $48. That’s why he was surprised a few months later when his health insurer, Molina Healthcare of Florida, charged him $536 — the full cost of one month of insurance without the tax credits that made his plan affordable. (Herrera, 6/16)
