States Allowed To Intervene Over Federal Subsidy Payments Case, Court Of Appeals Rules
The case, which dates back to the Obama administration, was filed by the Republican-led House against the government in an effort to block the subsidy payments to insurers for the individual plans created by the Affordable Care Act. Sixteen attorneys general, including California's, had filed to defend the subsidies.
Reuters:
Court Allows Democratic States To Defend Obamacare Payments
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday allowed Democratic state attorneys general to defend subsidy payments to insurance companies under the Obamacare healthcare law, a critical part of funding for the statute that President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a motion filed by the 16 attorneys general, led by California's Xavier Becerra and New York's Eric Schneiderman. (Hurley, 8/1)
The Washington Post:
Court Ruling Could Help Keep Obamacare Subsidies
Led by the Democratic attorneys general of New York and California, the motion that the court granted is the most recent twist in the gnarled legal and political history of the subsidies. In practical terms, the ruling could make it more difficult for the Trump administration and House Republicans to abandon the payments without a court fight. (Goldstein, 8/1)
Modern Healthcare:
Appeals Court Rules States Can Fight To Preserve ACA Subsidies
In May, 16 state attorneys general from both Republican- and Democratic-led states, led by California and New York, asked the federal appeals court for permission to intervene in the case. The lawsuit was originally brought by House Republicans to block federal payment to insurers to fund the Affordable Care Act's cost-sharing reduction subsidies for low-income exchange plan members. (Livingston, 8/2)
The Hill:
Court Rules Allowing Dem States To Defend Obamacare Payments
Insurers have threatened to leave the ObamaCare market exchanges if the payments are not continued, which could potentially leave millions without healthcare coverage options during the transition. "The states have shown a substantial risk that an injunction requiring termination of the payments at issue here ... would lead directly and imminently to an increase in insurance prices, which in turn will increase the number of uninsured individuals for whom the states will have to provide health care," the order stated. (Roubein and Seipel, 8/1)