Subsidies

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.

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.

This analysis provides an early look at premium changes for individuals in the health insurance marketplaces, created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in major cities in 10 states plus DC. Premium changes for the benchmark silver plans vary significantly across the sample cities. The benchmark rates will increase 4.4 percent on average in 2016 without accounting for tax credits, a relatively modest amount but greater than the average increase for 2015.

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

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.

This analysis estimates the range of repayment or refund amounts of the advanced premium tax credits issued to enrollees who experience income volatility between the time of enrollment and tax credit reconciliation. Using a simulation model among all households eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, it estimates that half would owe a repayment while 45 percent would be issued a refund of some or all of premium subsidies received.