Courts

With a Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell looming, this Drew Altman column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank plays out the politics of a ruling for the two major parties.

Given recent news about some high-cost prescription drugs and the debate about who should pay for them, this month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll has a special focus on the issue. Nearly three-quarters of the public think that the cost of prescription drugs is unreasonable. Americans place much of the blame with the drug companies saying they set prices too high and that company profits are a major factor in drug pricing. The poll also finds that most of the public still hasn’t heard much about the Supreme Court case on whether people in states with federal marketplaces are eligible for financial assistance to purchase health insurance. Most feel that Congress and states should act if the Court rules for the plaintiffs, but there is no agreement among partisans.

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 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…

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.

In his latest 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 Affordable Care Act. All previous columns by Drew Altman are available online.

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.

Most Expect Negative Consequences if Supreme Court Prohibits Subsidies in States Without Their Own Insurance Exchanges; Two Thirds of the Public and Those in Affected States Want Congress or Their State to Close Any Gaps As April 15 Tax Deadline Nears, Nearly Half Unaware Insurance Reporting Requirement Starts This Year…

As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marks its fifth anniversary, this month’s poll finds the gap between favorable and unfavorable opinions of the law has narrowed to the closest margin in over two years. Although the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the King v. Burwell case in early March, the majority of the public continues to say they have heard only a little or nothing at all about the case. The survey also includes a look at Americans’ experiences reporting their insurance status on their taxes for the first time, and finds that nearly half are unaware that the requirement to report health insurance status on their taxes takes effect this year.

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…