�鶹Ů��

Thousands of people signing up for health insurance this weekend may not realize it, but their coverage under President Barack Obama's law could be short-lived. The 2015 enrollment season, which ends Sunday, has avoided last year's website meltdown so far. But a Supreme Court case could result in millions of consumers losing financial assistance for their premiums later in the year. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2/12)

A new report from The Urban Institute, a liberal think tank, finds that if the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies, there will be $12 billion worth of healthcare that is not paid for in 2016, because people will lose insurance that they can no longer afford without the subsidies. Much of the "uncompensated care" comes in the form of emergency room visits by people without insurance. The report estimates 8.2 million people will lose insurance under a Supreme Court ruling against the law, including around 6 million who will be stripped of subsidies and more than 1 million more who will be unable to afford coverage because of premium increases. (Sullivan, 2/12)

Legal experts in favor of the Affordable Care Act say new information unearthed about the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell could derail the case before the justices have a chance to rule. “The case made by the [Affordable Care Act]’s opponents is unraveling around them,” Brianne Good and Joey Meyer, legal experts from the progressive group Constitutional Accountability Center, wrote in a blog this week. The standing of the four plaintiffs in the case has come under intense media scrutiny, with at least three of the challengers now facing claims they are not personally harmed by the law and therefore do not have standing to sue. (Ferris, 2/13)

A coalition of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) civil rights and community health organizations have filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the King v Burwell case, advocating on behalf of AAPIs that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) tax credits or subsidies should not be limited only to state-run health insurance Marketplaces, but should apply to all states, including those that use the federal Marketplace. (Kai-Hwa Wang, 2/12)

An appeals court has ruled that the birth control coverage required by federal health care reforms does not violate the rights of several religious groups because they can seek reasonable accommodations. Two western Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses and a private Christian college had challenged the birth control coverage mandates and won lower-court decisions. (Mandak, 2/12)