This issue brief summarizes the DC federal district court’s June 29, 2018 decision in Stewart v. Azar, the lawsuit brought by Medicaid enrollees challenging the HHS Secretary’s approval of the Kentucky HEALTH Section 1115 waiver program, which includes a work requirement, premiums, coverage lockouts, and other provisions that the state estimated would lead 95,000 people to lose coverage.
- view as grid
- view as list
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll examines the public’s attitudes, with a focus on views of women ages 18-44, toward several key women’s issues including workplace protections and reproductive health – as well as the role that these issues may play in the 2018 midterm elections.
In an Axios column, Drew Altman analyzes the narrowing gap between growth in health spending and GDP and discusses why it matters. The big question, he says, is will the narrowing have staying power?
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.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services including FDA approved prescription contraceptives and services for women. Legal challenges and recently issued rules have affected contraceptive coverage for many women.
This short fact sheet answers questions about how where a woman works may affect the contraceptive coverage she may receive.
In this Medium post, Alina Salganicoff outlines the legal arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell and discusses what the case could mean for contraceptive coverage.
In this post on The Huffington Post, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel offer a Q&A on “contraceptive-only” plans, an approach mentioned during oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. In the Zubik case, a group of religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to providing birth control coverage seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s provision requiring most plans to offer such coverage without cost-sharing.
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.
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…