Home Courts Tags

View the Latest: Courts

Filter

List Grid

111 - 120 of 153 Results

  • All Eyes on the Supreme Court: More than Birth Control at Stake

    Issue Brief

    On March 25th, the Supreme Court will hear two cases brought by for-profit corporations challenging the ACA’s contraceptive coverage rule on religious grounds. These two corporations are Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores owned by a Christian family and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet manufacturer, owned by a Mennonite family. Beyond the impact on the ACA and contraceptive coverage, the Court’s decision may have implications for religious rights of employers and employees, as well as corporate and civil rights laws. This brief examines three fundamental questions raised by some of the 84 amicus briefs that have been submitted to the Court.

  • A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Review of the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement

    Issue Brief

    This issue brief dissects the issues raised by the legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that private insurance plans include contraception as part of their coverage of preventive services for women. Over 40 for-profit corporations and over 40 nonprofit corporations have filed lawsuits claiming that the requirement to provide their employees with contraceptives violates their religious rights. On November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases filed by for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, that claim that this requirement violates their religious rights. At the crux of these cases is a question that the Supreme Court has not previously addressed: Do for-profit corporations have religious protections under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment? The brief provides background on how the ACA’s contraceptive requirement works, summarizes some of the legal challenges brought by for-profit and non-profit organizations and discusses the implications of potential rulings by the Supreme Court.

  • KFF Health Tracking Poll – April 2019: Surprise Medical Bills and Public’s View of the Supreme Court and Continuing Protections for People With Pre-Existing Conditions

    Feature

    The April 2019 KFF Health Tracking Poll examines the public’s position on the future of ACA and its protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions, in light of the ongoing legal battle which may end up in the Supreme Court. With lawmakers proposing legislation to address surprise medical bills, this month’s survey also measures the public’s support for federal government action to protect patients from having to pay the cost incurred from an inadvertent out-of-network provider.

  • A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Review of the 2010 Health Care Reform Law

    Issue Brief

    With the Supreme Court preparing to hear oral arguments about challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care Act in March 2012, this Kaiser Family Foundation brief serves as a primer on the pending case, which challenges the constitutionality both of the law's individual mandate that requires most Americans to obtain health insurance and of provisions requiring…

  • A Reporter’s Guide to Supreme Court Arguments on Health Reform

    Event Date:
    Event

    The Alliance for Health Reform and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation sponsored this reporters-only briefing to help journalists cover the Supreme Court arguments challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and their aftermath with greater depth and understanding.

  • State and Federal Contraceptive Coverage Requirements: Implications for Women and Employers

    Issue Brief

    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.

  • Explaining Stewart v. Azar: Implications of the Court’s Decision on Kentucky’s Medicaid Waiver

    Issue Brief

    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.

  • Ask KFF: MaryBeth Musumeci Answers 3 Questions on Kentucky, Arkansas Medicaid Work and Reporting Requirement Cases

    Issue Brief

    A federal district court has set aside the HHS Secretary’s approval of Medicaid waivers with work and reporting requirements and other eligibility and enrollment restrictions in Kentucky and Arkansas. For context as this all develops, we asked MaryBeth Musumeci, Associate Director at the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, three questions about the implications of the decisions.