A map and table showing the number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers; the total amount of federal subsidy dollars; the average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for; and the average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.
- state & global data
- view as grid
- view as list
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman lays out the news media’s challenge covering the upcoming Supreme Court King v. Burwell decision about the ACA.
At Five Year Anniversary of the ACA, Gap Between Favorable and Unfavorable Views Among The Public Narrows to Smallest Spread in More Than Two Years
Most Expect Negative Consequences if Supreme Court Prohibits Subsidies in States Without Their Own Insurance Exchanges; Two Thirds of the Public and Those in Affected States Want Congress or Their State to Close Any Gaps As April 15 Tax Deadline Nears, Nearly Half Unaware Insurance Reporting Requirement Starts This Year…
As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marks its fifth anniversary, this month’s poll finds the gap between favorable and unfavorable opinions of the law has narrowed to the closest margin in over two years. Although the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the King v. Burwell case in early March, the majority of the public continues to say they have heard only a little or nothing at all about the case. The survey also includes a look at Americans’ experiences reporting their insurance status on their taxes for the first time, and finds that nearly half are unaware that the requirement to report health insurance status on their taxes takes effect this year.
New Kaiser Policy Insight and Issue Brief Examine Policy Implications and Legal Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Case
With the Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell on March 4, a new Policy Insight from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt and Gary Claxton explores the policy implications for consumers and insurance markets if the Court were to side with the plaintiffs in the…
Are Premium Subsidies Available in States with a Federally-run Marketplace? A Guide to the Supreme Court Argument in King v. Burwell
This issue brief examines the major questions raised by King v. Burwell, explains the parties’ legal arguments, and considers the potential effects of a Supreme Court decision about the availability of the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies in states with a Federally-run Marketplace.
This perspective addresses how insurance markets might respond if the US Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case. The case challenges the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying insurance in states where the federal government rather than the state is operating the marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds though few Americans are paying attention to the pending Supreme Court case over whether the health care law says that people in all states can get financial help to buy health insurance, most say they would want Congress and their state to act to fix potential gaps should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs. With a new Republican majority controlling both Houses of Congress, the public remains divided on what they would like Congress to do next with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) overall. About a third (32%) say they favor repeal, another 14 percent would like the law scaled back, 19 percent want the law to move forward as is, and nearly a quarter (23%) would like to see the law expanded.
Majority of Public Says Congress Should Act to Close Gaps if the Supreme Court Bars Financial Help for Purchasing Insurance in States Relying on healthcare.gov; Most in Potentially Affected States Want Their State To Set Up Its Own Marketplace if Needed
Views Mixed on Changes to Definition of Full-Time Work For Employer Mandate, with More Opposed than Supportive, And a Third Saying They Don’t Know Enough to Say Public Remains Divided Over Next Steps for the Affordable Care Act, Though Most Expect Major or Minor Changes under GOP Congress this Year…
Explaining Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center: The Supreme Court Considers Private Enforcement of the Medicaid Act
On January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, a case that raises the issue of whether Medicaid providers can challenge a state law in federal court on the basis that it violates the federal Medicaid Act and therefore is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This issue brief examines the major questions raised by the Armstrong case, explains the parties’ legal arguments, and considers potential effects of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.