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.
- 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.
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.
This was published as a Wall Street Journal Think Tank column on January 6, 2015. Yogi Berra said that when you come to a fork in the road, take it. It will be that kind of year for health-care politics. The status quo is not an option. The key to which path…
In his first 2015 column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explains why this year, status quo for the Affordable Care Act is not an option and how the Supreme Court rules in King v. Burwell will determine its path. All previous columns by Drew Altman are…
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…