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.
- view as grid
- view as list
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…
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services including FDA approved prescription contraceptives and services for women. Legal challenges and recently issued rules have affected contraceptive coverage for many women.
This short fact sheet answers questions about how where a woman works may affect the contraceptive coverage she may receive.
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.
The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, 2014 on the cases brought forth by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two for profit corporations challenging the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The plaintiffs contend that the requirement that they include coverage for certain contraceptive services (emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) in the insurance plans “substantially burdens” both the corporation’s and the owners’ religious rights. During the arguments, several of the justices discussed the extent to which the corporations did or not did not have a choice in offering coverage to their workers. In this brief, we explore some of the factors influencing coverage decisions and possible consequences for women and employers given possible Supreme Court decision options: either upholding the contraceptive coverage requirement, or in favor of Hobby Lobby.
Olmstead’s Role in Community Integration for People with Disabilities Under Medicaid: 15 Years After the Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision
June 2014 marks the 15th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark civil rights decision in Olmstead v. L.C., finding that the unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities is illegal discrimination. This issue brief examines the legacy of Olmstead, with an emphasis on legal case developments and policy trends emerging in the last five years and the related contributions of the Medicaid program.
Data Note: Differences In Public Opinion On The ACA’s Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, By Gender, Religion, And Political Party
One of the most politically polarizing elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the law’s requirement that new private health insurance plans cover prescription contraceptives and services, including all methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The rule currently provides an exemption for houses of worship and an…
Brief Examines the Olmstead Decision’s Role In Community Integration for People With Disabilities Under Medicaid
As the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision approaches this month, a new brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation examines the legacy of the landmark civil rights ruling that the institutionalization of people with disabilities is illegal discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The brief, Olmstead’s Role…
Issue Brief Explores Consequences of Potential Supreme Court Decisions on the ACA Contraceptive Coverage Requirement
A new Kaiser Family Foundation issue brief explores some of the factors influencing employers’ coverage decisions and possible consequences for employers and workers that could arise from possible Supreme Court decisions in the cases brought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, for-profit corporations challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement…