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.
- view as grid
- view as list
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…
Following the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision, the Affordable Care Act could use a break from the intense political heat, though it may not get a long one as the 2016 election season heats up and presidential candidates play to their bases on health care, writes Drew Altman in his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank.
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…
Web Briefing for Media – The Supreme Court, Birth Control, and Religious Freedom: Implications of Zubik v. Burwell
On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Zubik v. Burwell, legal challenges brought by nonprofit corporations challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The 2014 Hobby Lobby decision established that certain firms with religious beliefs should be relieved of the requirement of paying for contraceptive coverage. In this case, religious nonprofits are objecting to the regulations that the Obama Administration has developed to accommodate their religious objections to birth control, claiming it still burdens their religious beliefs. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated case has taken on yet an additional question. Given that the Court will be operating with only 8 Justices, what would be the impact of a tie (4-4) decision? To address the legal and policy questions raised by the case, the Kaiser Family Foundation will hold an interactive web briefing exclusively for journalists.
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.
The July Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that over half the public has an unfavorable view of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in July, up eight percentage points since last month, while the share viewing the law favorably held steady at just under four in ten. This month’s poll also explored the public’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision upholding craft store chain Hobby Lobby’s ability to deny workers coverage of certain contraceptives based on the company’s owners’ religious beliefs. The public overall is evenly split between those who approve and disapprove of the Court’s decision, with only a small difference in opinion between women and men, but deep divisions by party identification, ideology, and religious affiliation.
Before the ACA was passed, many states had enacted contraceptive equity laws that required plans to treat contraceptives in the same way they covered other services. In addition, since the ACA was passed, a number of states have enacted laws that basically codify in state legislation the ACA benefit rules. This issue brief provides an update on the status of the continuing litigation on the federal contraceptive requirement and explains the interplay between the federal and state contraceptive coverage laws and the implications for employers and women.
On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A majority of the Court also found the ACA’s Medicaid expansion unconstitutionally coercive of states, while a different majority of the Court held that this issue was fully remedied by limiting the Health…
This background brief provides a comprehensive look at the appeals process for the Medicaid program, which differs significantly from those available through the Medicare program and private health insurance. The Medicaid appeals process provides redress for individual applicants and beneficiaries seeking eligibility for the program or coverage of prescribed services,…