A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans in major metropolitan areas in 11 states where data are available, including the District of Columbia, finds that preliminary 2016 premiums for benchmark silver plans grew modestly, but increased more sharply this year than last year. The average increase for benchmark plans across the cities is 4.4 percent for 2016 compared with a 2 percent increase nationwide in 2015.
- view as grid
- view as list
The Kaiser Family Foundation held a media-only conference call with key experts on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), state marketplaces and more to explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the King v. Burwell case and to answer questions about its implications. The petitioners in the case are challenging the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying health plans in 34 states where the federal government rather than the state is operating an insurance marketplace established by the Affordable Care Act.
With the Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell upholding the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidies, Drew Altman’s column in The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank explores what the decision means and what’s next for the health law.
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that when told that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it is, allowing subsidies to be provided to low- and moderate-income people in all states regardless of who runs their Marketplace, about 6 in 10 say they approve of the decision while about a third disapprove. The King v. Burwell ruling does not appear to have had an immediate effect on the public’s overall views of the health law. Still, most Americans do not think the ACA has cleared its last big hurdle with the June 25 Supreme Court ruling; just 18 percent think the King v. Burwell case was the last major battle over the ACA, while nearly 8 in 10 think there will be more to come.
Poll Finds 62% of Americans Approve of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Continue Allowing ACA Health Insurance Subsidies in All States, While 32% Disapprove
Public’s View of the Health Care Law Remains Nearly Evenly Divided Immediately Following King v. Burwell Ruling Nearly Eight in 10 Americans Expect More Major Battles about the ACA in the Future Just over six in 10 Americans (62%) say they approve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week…
Larry Levitt’s August 2015 piece analyzes Affordable Care Act replacement plans proposed by 2016 Republican presidential candidates, and compares them to the health care law. The post is now available at the Los Angeles Times.
The chart and tables below present an updated analysis of changes in premiums for the lowest- and second-lowest cost silver Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans in major cities in 48 states and the District of Columbia, where we were able to find complete data on rates for all insurers. This page will be updated as complete rate information becomes available for more states. More background can be found in our earlier analysis of 2016 rates.
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.
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.