It’s getting to be a summer tradition: a new set of court decisions on the Affordable Care Act. This past week two courts reached opposite conclusions on whether the IRS can issue subsidies through the federally facilitated marketplaces, affecting potentially 7.3 million people. Research Fellow Sandy Ahn talks about these decisions and their impact on the ACA’s ability to address the “three As” of health coverage: access, affordability, and adequacy.
A number of states recently filed amicus briefs in a court battle over whether federally facilitated exchanges can provide premium tax credits to low- and middle-income consumers. Because the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate penalties are contingent on employees accessing subsidized coverage through an exchange, the states are asserting that they purposefully opted for federally run exchanges so employers would not face this burden. In a guest post, former CHIR researcher Christine Monahan assesses the veracity of this claim.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual blog post authors and do not represent the views of Georgetown University, the Center on Health Insurance Reforms, any organization that the author is affiliated with, or the opinions of any other author who publishes on this blog.
