The July Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that over half the public has an unfavorable view of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in July, up eight percentage points since last month, while the share viewing the law favorably held steady at just under four in ten. This month’s poll also explored the public’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision upholding craft store chain Hobby Lobby’s ability to deny workers coverage of certain contraceptives based on the company’s owners’ religious beliefs. The public overall is evenly split between those who approve and disapprove of the Court’s decision, with only a small difference in opinion between women and men, but deep divisions by party identification, ideology, and religious affiliation.
- state & global data
- view as grid
- view as list
The July Kaiser Health Policy News Index finds the most closely followed news stories this month were discussions about how to deal with large numbers of unaccompanied minors arriving in the U.S. from Central America, military and political conflict between Israel and Hamas, and ongoing problems related to Veterans Affairs (or V.A.) medical facilities. Six in ten report closely following the Supreme Court’s decision in a case about whether for-profit companies should be required to cover birth control for women in their workers’ health plans (the Hobby Lobby case), and about half of the public is able to correctly identify the Court’s decision.
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman maps what the combined impact of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion and a plaintiff’s win in Halbig would look like and discusses the impact of court decisions on health policy.
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman maps what the combined impact of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion and a plaintiff’s win in Halbig would look like and discusses the impact of court decisions on health policy. All…
This issue brief examines the federal courts’ role to date in interpreting and affecting implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with a focus on the provisions that seek to expand access to affordable coverage.
In a column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman discusses if the legal court cases about whether the government can provide tax credits to people in the Affordable Care Act’s federal health exchanges will be perceived by the American people as a legitimate legal question or as more inside-Washington politics.
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.
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.
New Analysis Details Impact on Residents in Different States If the U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Challengers in King v. Burwell
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month in the King v. Burwell case that challenges whether low- and moderate-income Americans are eligible for subsidies to help pay for insurance if they live in states where the federal government, rather than the state, established its new insurance marketplace…
Larry Levitt’s March 2015 post explores what could happen if the U.S. Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case, the lawsuit that challenges the federal government’s authority to provide financial assistance to people who buy insurance in federally-operated marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.