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.
- state & global data
- view as grid
- view as list
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.
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…
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).
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…
Drew Altman, in The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, on what we know about what women think of the policy issue at the core of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case.
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.