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.
- view as grid
- view as list
In his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores the trend of higher deductibles in health plans and discusses a new analysis showing that many people with insurance don’t have sufficient financial resources to pay a mid- or high-range deductible. All previous columns by Drew…
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores the trend of higher deductibles in health plans and discusses a new analysis showing that many people with private insurance don’t have sufficient financial resources to pay a mid- or high-range deductible.
Higher cost sharing in private insurance has been credited with helping to slow the growth of health care costs in recent years. For families with low incomes or moderate incomes, however, high deductibles, out-of-pocket limits and other cost sharing can be a potential barrier to care and may lead these families to significant financial difficulties. This issue brief uses information from the Federal Reserve Board’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances to look at how household resources match up against potential cost-sharing requirements for plans offered by employers or available in the individual market, including in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
On Friday, March 6, 2014, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Alliance for Health Reform hosted an ACA 101 briefing on the Affordable Care Act. The briefing took place just as the second marketplace enrollment period ended, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the ACA’s subsidies (King v Burwell).
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores a practical timetable for state action if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in King V. Burwell and ponders what Republicans in Congress might do.
This brief examines the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act , providing an update on how they have been implemented and assessing their impact five years after the law’s enactment. It also discusses key issues for coverage going forward.
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).