/ en Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:22:44 -0500 Thu, 17 Jun 21 14:12:47 -0500 /news/blog/2021-06-17-blog-affordable-care-act-survives-third-supreme-court-suit-unscathed <p>Individuals and states have tried — three times — to wipe the Affordable Care Act off the books. The Supreme Court today — for the third time — rejected those efforts. In a lopsided 7-2 opinion, the Court held that individual plaintiffs and states seeking to strike down the Act lacked “standing,” or the legal right, to bring their suit. </p> <p>Although the Court’s opinion turned on the nuances of standing doctrine, the bottom line for hospitals is clear: The ACA is here to stay, without change, a result AHA advocated in a Supreme Court <a href="/amicus-brief/2020-01-15-amici-curiae-brief-aha-and-national-hospital-associations-support">friend-of-the-court brief</a> joined by three other national hospital associations. Justice Breyer authored the Court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Only Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.</p> <p>In 2017, Congress amended the ACA to zero out its penalty for those who did not comply with its individual mandate requiring Americans to obtain health insurance coverage. This amendment effectively neutered the mandate; it would technically remain on the books, but nothing would happen to those who did not buy insurance.</p> <p>But the plaintiffs in this lawsuit saw the amendment as an opening to attack the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court had upheld the individual mandate as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. As the Court saw it, the individual mandate was actually a choice: Buy insurance or pay tax. With the penalty gone, the plaintiffs argued, the mandate could no longer be upheld as a tax. And the unconstitutional mandate, they claimed, could not be severed, or separated, from the rest of the ACA. </p> <p>The Court today held that it did not need to wade into the merits of the plaintiffs’ challenge. Under the Constitution, a plaintiff must have “standing” to bring a federal-court lawsuit. Standing requires both that the plaintiff be injured in a tangible way and that the injury be traceable to the legal provision that the plaintiff claims is unlawful. The individual and state plaintiffs here argued that they satisfied this requirement in different ways, but the Court disagreed with them both.</p> <p>The individual plaintiffs argued the mandate without a penalty harmed them because they felt compelled by the mandate’s existence to purchase insurance they would otherwise forego. But the Court explained that without a penalty, the mandate does not coerce anyone to do anything; it is just unenforceable statutory text. The alleged harm of paying for insurance therefore was not traceable to the allegedly unconstitutional individual mandate.</p> <p>The state plaintiffs’ standing arguments also went nowhere. The state plaintiffs argued that the individual mandate cost them money because state employees would sign up for state-sponsored insurance plans and state residents would sign up for state-funded Medicaid to comply with the mandate.  </p> <p>But the Court again explained that the mandate without a penalty was not responsible for these harms; without a penalty, state employees and citizens would sign up for health insurance and Medicaid because of the benefits to their health, not to comply with a no-consequences mandate. </p> <p>The state plaintiffs also argued that they were harmed by having to report compliance with various ACA provisions, but the Court held yet again that the harm was not traceable to the individual mandate. Those reporting requirements existed separately from the allegedly unconstitutional mandate and therefore the mandate was not the source of the states’ claimed reporting-cost harms.  </p> <p>The Court also declined to pass upon the plaintiffs’ argument, advanced for the first time in the Supreme Court and embraced by Justice Alito’s dissent, that a plaintiff can prove standing by arguing he is harmed by a constitutional provision of law that cannot be severed from an unconstitutional provision of law that does not harm him. And with no plaintiff having standing, the Court held that the entire lawsuit must be dismissed.  </p> <p>Beyond the legal details, the message from the Court’s overwhelming majority opinion is clear: The Court is tired of being asked time and again to overturn the law, on increasingly tenuous legal arguments. </p> <p>And the message for hospitals is equally clear: They can continue the important work of implementing the ACA and building and expanding on its coverage and innovation gains.</p> <p><em>Sean Marotta is a partner at Hogan Lovells and AHA outside counsel.</em><br />  </p> Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:12:47 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /news/headline/2021-06-17-supreme-court-dismisses-third-major-challenge-aca-see-ahas-media-statement <p>The United States Supreme Court this morning rejected the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf">third major challenge</a> to the Affordable Care Act, holding in a 7-2 decision that the challengers did not have “standing,” or the legal right to challenge the portions of the ACA they alleged were unconstitutional. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the Court’s opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. </p> <p>In a statement shared with the media <a href="/press-releases/2021-06-17-statement-supreme-court-decision-affordable-care-act">today</a>, AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack said, “The more than 30 million Americans who secured health insurance under the Affordable Care Act can again breathe a sigh of relief. But our work is far from over. We need to redouble our efforts to close coverage gaps and make care affordable and accessible for everyone, all while continuing to fight COVID-19 and encouraging more Americans to get vaccinated. The AHA is eager to partner with Congress and the Biden administration to make sure all Americans can achieve their highest potential for health.” AHA members this morning received a <a href="/special-bulletin/2021-06-17-supreme-court-dismisses-third-major-challenge-affordable-care-act">Special Bulletin</a> with more details. </p> <p>For more analysis on the Supreme Court decision, read a <a href="/news/blog/2021-06-17-blog-affordable-care-act-survives-third-supreme-court-suit-unscathed">new blog</a> from AHA outside counsel Sean Marotta, a partner at Hogan Lovells, who authored AHA’s friend-of-the-court brief in this case.<br />  </p> Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:05:22 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /press-releases/2021-06-17-statement-supreme-court-decision-affordable-care-act <p class="text-align-center"><strong>Rick Pollack<br /> President and CEO <br /> ���������� Association<br />  <br /> June 17, 2021</strong></p> <p>The more than 30 million Americans who secured health insurance under the Affordable Care Act can again breathe a sigh of relief. But our work is far from over. We need to redouble our efforts to close coverage gaps and make care affordable and accessible for everyone, all while continuing to fight COVID-19 and encouraging more Americans to get vaccinated. The AHA is eager to partner with Congress and the Biden administration to make sure all Americans can achieve their highest potential for health.  <br />  </p> <p class="text-align-center">###</p> Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:42:25 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /supreme-court-cases .leadp p { size: 16px; font-size: 16px; } <div class="container"> <div class="row"> <div class="col-md-8"> <h2>ACA Individual Mandate (Texas v. California)</h2> <div class="leadp"> <p>The Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 2020, will hear oral arguments in the case of California v. Texas, in which those opposed to the Affordable Care Act contend that when Congress set the tax penalty for failing to purchase insurance at zero dollars, the ACA’s requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance became unconstitutional.</p> <hr /> <div><a href="https://soundcloud.com/advancinghealth" target="_blank" title="Advancing Health">Advancing Health</a> · <a href="https://soundcloud.com/advancinghealth/supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-appeal-of-aca-ruling" target="_blank" title="Supreme Court hears oral argument in appeal of ACA ruling">Supreme Court hears oral argument in appeal of ACA ruling</a></div> <hr /> <h3><a href="/news/blog/2020-11-05-blog-5-things-listen-during-next-weeks-supreme-court-aca-oral-argument" target="_blank">Blog: 5 Things to Listen for During the Nov. 10 Supreme Court ACA Oral Argument</a></h3> <p>In this <a href="/news/blog/2020-11-05-blog-5-things-listen-during-next-weeks-supreme-court-aca-oral-argument" target="_blank">AHA blog post</a>, Sean Marotta, AHA outside counsel, shares five things to look for when the Supreme Court hears oral argument Nov. 10 in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Marotta authored AHA’s friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and will be live tweeting the oral argument and providing analysis for AHA at <a href="https://twitter.com/smmarotta" target="_blank">@smmarotta</a> and here on the AHA website starting at 10 a.m. ET.</p> </div> <div class="row"> <div class="col-md-6"><div class="views-element-container"> <section class="top-level-view js-view-dom-id-80034563298032b6b19ea828d125987a827086ceeee986637f629be6b0dd4bfc resource-block"> <h2>Legal Filings</h2> <div class="resource-wrapper"> <div class="resource-view"> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/supreme-court-cases" hreflang="en">Supreme Court Cases</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-11-04T16:24:58-06:00">Nov 4, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-36-state-hospital-associations-support-petitioners" hreflang="en">Amicus Brief: 36 State Hospital Associations in Support of Petitioners</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-05-13T14:44:53-05:00">May 13, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-national-hospital-associations-support-california-state" hreflang="en">Amicus Brief: National Hospital Associations in Support of the California State Coalition and House of Representatives</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-05-13T14:29:01-05:00">May 13, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-01-16-amicus-brief-state-hospital-groups-urge-supreme-court-review-aca-case-term" hreflang="en">Amicus Brief: State Hospital Groups Urge Supreme Court to Review ACA Case this Term</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-01-16T14:08:24-06:00">Jan 16, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-01-15-amici-curiae-brief-aha-and-national-hospital-associations-support" hreflang="en">Amici Curiae Brief of the AHA and National Hospital Associations in Support of the Petitioners </a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-01-15T13:38:02-06:00">Jan 15, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> </div> </div> </section> </div> <div class="views-element-container"> <section class="top-level-view js-view-dom-id-3cf1b0922ae44eb12558166bb57a9f3adbec839e159305ef7517cf970619298a resource-block"> <h2>Special Bulletins</h2> <div class="resource-wrapper"> <div class="resource-view"> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/special-bulletin/2020-09-21-aha-video-how-us-supreme-court-vacancy-could-affect-health-care-cases-0" hreflang="en">Special Bulletin: AHA Video — How the U.S. Supreme Court Vacancy Could Affect Health Care Cases</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-09-21T18:18:40-05:00">Sep 21, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/special-bulletin/2019-12-19-special-bulletin-appeals-court-finds-aca-individual-mandate" hreflang="en">Special Bulletin: Appeals Court Finds ACA Individual Mandate Unconstitutional </a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2019-12-19T14:54:45-06:00">Dec 19, 2019</time> </span> </div></div> </div> </div> </section> </div> <div class="views-element-container"> <section class="top-level-view js-view-dom-id-19181c18c9c4bc080b0737066ab7403924487ad0700aecd3516f62f5699090fb resource-block"> <h2>Press Releases and Statements</h2> <div class="resource-wrapper"> <div class="resource-view"> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/blog/2021-06-17-blog-affordable-care-act-survives-third-supreme-court-suit-unscathed" hreflang="en">Blog: Affordable Care Act Survives Third Supreme Court Suit Unscathed</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2021-06-17T14:12:47-05:00">Jun 17, 2021</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/press-releases/2021-06-17-statement-supreme-court-decision-affordable-care-act" hreflang="en">STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2021-06-17T09:42:25-05:00">Jun 17, 2021</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/press-releases/2020-03-02-statement-supreme-court-decision-california-v-texas" hreflang="en">Statement on Supreme Court decision in California v. Texas</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-03-02T09:51:09-06:00">Mar 2, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/blog/2019-12-19-key-takeaways-and-next-steps-aca-court-case" hreflang="en">Key takeaways and next steps in ACA court case</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2019-12-19T15:53:16-06:00">Dec 19, 2019</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/press-releases/2019-12-19-statement-fifth-circuit-court-appeals-decision-affordable-care-act" hreflang="en">Statement on Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision on the Affordable Care Act</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2019-12-19T09:18:57-06:00">Dec 19, 2019</time> </span> </div></div> </div> </div> </section> </div> </div> <div class="col-md-6"><div class="views-element-container"> <section class="top-level-view js-view-dom-id-0e3c24eba9b5356d2494f61e6b956dc199196fa6b81366f6d5de019d17044980 resource-block"> <h2>News</h2> <div class="resource-wrapper"> <div class="resource-view"> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/blog/2021-06-17-blog-affordable-care-act-survives-third-supreme-court-suit-unscathed" hreflang="en">Blog: Affordable Care Act Survives Third Supreme Court Suit Unscathed</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2021-06-17T14:12:47-05:00">Jun 17, 2021</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2021-06-17-supreme-court-dismisses-third-major-challenge-aca-see-ahas-media-statement" hreflang="en">Supreme Court dismisses third major challenge to ACA; see AHA’s media statement and blog for more analysis</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2021-06-17T13:05:22-05:00">Jun 17, 2021</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-09-22-aha-video-how-us-supreme-court-vacancy-could-affect-health-care-cases" hreflang="en">AHA video: How the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy could affect health care cases</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-09-22T14:38:59-05:00">Sep 22, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-06-26-trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-strike-down-aca" hreflang="en">Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strike down ACA</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-06-26T14:20:50-05:00">Jun 26, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-06-26-nearly-487000-enroll-healthcaregov-coverage-april" hreflang="en">Nearly 487,000 enroll in HealthCare.gov coverage in April</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-06-26T14:20:47-05:00">Jun 26, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-05-13-supreme-court-urged-reverse-appeals-court-ruling-aca" hreflang="en">Supreme Court urged to reverse appeals court ruling on ACA</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-05-13T15:38:01-05:00">May 13, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-03-02-supreme-court-will-review-aca-case" hreflang="en">Supreme Court will review ACA case</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-03-02T14:01:09-06:00">Mar 2, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-01-21-supreme-court-will-not-expedite-review-aca-case" hreflang="en">Supreme Court will not expedite review of ACA case </a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-01-21T14:46:57-06:00">Jan 21, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-01-16-state-hospital-groups-urge-supreme-court-review-aca-case-term" hreflang="en">State hospital groups urge Supreme Court to review ACA case this term </a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-01-16T16:16:32-06:00">Jan 16, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> <div class="article views-row"> <div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/news/headline/2020-01-15-national-hospital-groups-urge-supreme-court-review-aca-case-term" hreflang="en">National hospital groups urge Supreme Court to review ACA case this term</a></span> </div><div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="field-content"><time datetime="2020-01-15T15:04:33-06:00">Jan 15, 2020</time> </span> </div></div> </div> </div> </section> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="col-md-4"> <h3><a href="https://twitter.com/smmarotta/status/1326208952351268869" target="_blank">See Sean Marotta's full thread of Tweets on the SCOTUS oral arguments in the ACA Individual Mandate Case on Twitter.</a></h3> <hr /> <h4><a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1326176638581805058.html" target="_blank">You can also view the thread through the Threader Reader App.</a></h4> </div> </div> </div> Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:24:58 -0600 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /news/headline/2020-09-22-aha-video-how-us-supreme-court-vacancy-could-affect-health-care-cases <p><span><span><span>AHA General Counsel Melinda Hatton interviews Cate Stetson, acclaimed advocate and leader of the appellate practice at Hogan Lovells, about the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy and what it means for the legal challenges facing the Affordable Care Act and other legal cases that matter to hospitals and health systems. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fsend.aha.org%2Flink.cfm%3Fr%3DcQydrN3SfUMqLWU88xWykQ~~%26pe%3D7uwiLu2K-nBM8EhrjW9qT3A2IIRWxo5tYRwxiqL7ihWHhuAt71RusPCCFba3P88xkF_wZg2PyEgl8K4zg4DfUw~~%26t%3DTK_s1WcvCfxbe3uXVIYXIQ~~&data=02%7C01%7Cjweinsheimer%40aha.org%7Cf8d7707a635c470d775208d85f30b891%7Cb9119340beb74e5e84b23cc18f7b36a6%7C0%7C0%7C637364010142945218&sdata=prBBDrSwt7zynC1v0CYNrWbbE3D%2BW1me1oMDQEWzHIE%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank"><span>Watch the video here</span></a>.</span></span></span></p> Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:38:59 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /special-bulletin/2020-09-21-aha-video-how-us-supreme-court-vacancy-could-affect-health-care-cases-0 <p>The AHA this afternoon posted a video with analysis on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy and what it means for legal cases that matter to hospitals and health systems. The opening on the court occurred when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away Friday, Sept. 18.</p><p>On this video, AHA General Counsel Melinda Reid Hatton and acclaimed appellate litigator Cate Stetson, a partner at law firm Hogan Lovells, discuss Justice Ginsburg’s contribution to the Supreme Court and justice in America, the legal challenges facing the Affordable Care Act, and lawsuits that could affect hospitals and health systems.</p><p><a href="/special-bulletin/2020-09-21-aha-video-how-us-supreme-court-vacancy-could-affect-health-care-cases">Click here to watch the video.</a></p><h2>Further Questions</h2><p>If you have questions, please contact the AHA at <a href="tel:1-800-424-4301">800-424-4301</a>.</p><hr><p> Your browser does not support the video tag.</p><p>NOTE: If the video does not automatically launch and play, please reload the page and advance the progress button to the 10-second mark if needed. <a href="/system/files/media/video/2020/09/Hatton-Stetson.mp4">Click here to watch the video in a new window.</a></p> Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:18:40 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /news/headline/2020-06-26-trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-strike-down-aca <p><span><span><span><span>The Department of Justice yesterday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, including its protections for pre-existing conditions and expansion of the Medicaid program. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year held the ACA’s individual mandate was unconstitutional because Congress had repealed the tax penalty enforcing the law's individual mandate, and sent the case back to a district court in Texas to determine which of the law's provisions could survive without the mandate. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Twenty states and the District of Columbia asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, which the court agreed to do. The Department of Justice's brief yesterday asked the court to find the entire Act could not survive without the mandate, arguing that Congress would not have enacted any of the ACA without the mandate.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The AHA, joined by America’s Essential Hospitals, Association of </span></span><span>American Medical Colleges, and Federation of ����������s <a href="/amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-national-hospital-associations-support-california-state">have urged</a> the Supreme Court to reverse the <span>appeals court decision and uphold the Act in its entirety, as have </span><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-36-state-hospital-associations-support-petitioners">36 state hospital associations</a>.</span></span></span></p> Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:20:50 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /news/headline/2020-06-26-nearly-487000-enroll-healthcaregov-coverage-april <p><span><span><span><span>More than 892,000 consumers in states using the HealthCare.gov platform gained 2020 coverage since the end of open enrollment through May by using a Special Enrollment Period, a 27% increase from the same period last year, according to a report <a href="https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/Downloads/SEP-Report-June-2020.pdf">released yesterday</a> by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Almost 487,000 enrollees used the SEP for people who recently lost other qualifying health coverage, with the largest monthly gain in April. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Consumers who experience <a href="https://marketplace.cms.gov/outreach-and-education/special-enrollment-periods-available-to-consumers.pdf">one of six types</a> of life events can select a plan during an SEP.</span></span></span></span></p> Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:20:47 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /news/headline/2020-05-13-supreme-court-urged-reverse-appeals-court-ruling-aca <p><span><span><span>The AHA, joined by America’s Essential Hospitals, Association of American Medical Colleges, and Federation of ����������s today urged the Supreme Court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that held the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate unconstitutional.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“Since its enactment in 2010, the ACA has made substantial progress toward improving Americans’ access to quality health care,” the organizations said in a </span><span><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-national-hospital-associations-support-california-state?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=05132020%2Dat%2Dpub&utm_campaign=aha%2Dtoday" target="_blank">friend-of-the-court brief</a>. “More Americans have health insurance coverage because of the ACA’s many reforms, such as Medicaid expansion, the guaranteed-issue requirements, premium subsidies, and the creation of state insurance exchanges. And the ACA’s wide range of programs that encourage innovation in patient care have led to improvements in the quality of American health care.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“Congress recognized this progress when it amended the ACA in 2017. … The likely catastrophic effects of a ruling invalidating the ACA confirm that Congress did not intend that result. Judicial repeal would threaten improvements made to the care Americans receive by eliminating innovations, including programs designed to combat substance abuse. It would also roll back coverage gains, leaving many newly insured patients without access to everything from routine checkups and tests to treatment for chronic illnesses and opioid addiction.”</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>In a </span><span><a href="/amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-36-state-hospital-associations-support-petitioners?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=05132020%2Dat%2Dpub&utm_campaign=aha%2Dtoday" target="_blank">separate friend-of-the-court brief</a>, 36 state hospital associations also urged the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act made health care available to millions of individuals through insurance subsidies and expansion of the federal Medicaid program,” their brief states. “Often overlooked in the controversy regarding those provisions … are the ACA’s many other basic health care reforms. … Since there is not a shred of evidence that Congress would have declined to enact these reforms absent the minimum coverage provision, they must remain in force.”</span></span></span></p> Wed, 13 May 2020 15:38:01 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California) /amicus-brief/2020-05-13-amicus-brief-36-state-hospital-associations-support-petitioners <h2>Interest of Amici Curiae</h2> <p>This brief<sup><a href="#fn1">1</a></sup> is filed on behalf of 36 state hospital associations,<sup><a href="#fn2">2</a></sup> which represent over 5,000 hospitals and health systems that treat tens of millions of patients every year and currently stand on the frontlines of a global pandemic. Amici and their members (hereafter “amici”) share an interest in delivering quality, affordable health care, and therefore in the preservation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Since enactment of the ACA, amici have spent substantial resources embracing the law’s reforms that have resulted in the delivery of higherquality, more coordinated care at a lower cost. Amici are submitting this brief because they support the ACA and because reverting back to old delivery models would significantly disrupt amici’s operations and patient care.</p> <p>Although this brief focuses on the delivery of health care services in this country, amici endorse the constitutional and severability arguments presented by petitioners, which demonstrate that the Fifth Circuit wrongly decided this appeal.<sup><a href="#fn3">3</a></sup> Amici agree with petitioners that the ACA’s minimum coverage provision, as amended, is constitutional. But if this Court decides otherwise, amici concur that this Court should hold that the rest of the ACA must remain intact. As petitioners have demonstrated, it is clear that the 2017 Congress would have intended that the ACA remain in force if the minimum coverage provision were judicially invalidated. After all, the 2017 Congress thought it was <em>legislatively</em> invalidating that provision when it zeroed out the tax for noncompliance. Having observed the ACA work for years—including in hospitals and health systems across the country—the 2017 Congress had expressly rejected legislation that would have repealed the entire ACA which definitively demonstrates its intent that the remaining provisions are severable from the minimum coverage provision.</p> <h2>Introduction</h2> <p>The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act<sup><a href="#fn4">4</a></sup> made health care available to millions of individuals through insurance subsidies and expansion of the federal Medicaid program. Often overlooked in the controversy regarding those provisions, which occupied just two of ten titles and fewer than 300 pages of the 974-page bill, are the ACA’s many other basic health care reforms. These include, for example, amendments to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, a pathway for approval of generic biologics by the Food and Drug Administration, provisions making Medicare Part D prescription drugs more affordable, the addition of nutritional information to restaurant menus, disclosure of drug company gifts to physicians, and the subject of this brief: foundational changes to the way health care services are delivered and paid for.</p> <p>The ACA’s “delivery reforms,” which the Fifth Circuit and the district court did not even mention in their opinions, transformed the way hospitals and health systems deliver and are paid for health care. These provisions have promoted innovative, new models of care and have provided substantial investments in the health care workforce. They also addressed prevention and launched new initiatives to improve health care quality. In the ten years since the ACA was enacted, these reforms have made fundamental improvements in the quality and coordination of care, saving billions of federal dollars. They have become integral to the delivery of health care services in the United States.</p> <h2>Argument</h2> <p>In their attempt to strike down every provision of the ACA, respondents have characterized the Act’s major health care delivery reforms as “minor” provisions. This misnomer led the district court to invalidate these important provisions along with the rest of the law because the court considered them “adjuncts of” the requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty (the “minimum coverage provision”). The Fifth Circuit, to its credit, recognized that the district court’s severability analysis was superficial and ordered the district court to conduct the severability analysis with a “finer-toothed comb.” Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit adopted the district court’s faulty taxonomy, labeling scores of critical provisions as “minor” and abdicating its responsibility to rule on the purely legal severability issue. Both courts failed to recognize that the ACA’s delivery reforms have transformed the delivery of health care in the United States by providing more integrated, cost-effective care, while maintaining quality. And because there is no basis for concluding that Congress intended those provisions—which were enacted in separate titles and function independently of the ACA’s insurance-related provisions—to be inseverable, they, along with the other remaining provisions, should be left intact regardless of how the Court rules on the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision.</p> <hr /> <ol> <li id="fn1">Pursuant to Rule 37, all parties have provided written consent to the filing of this amici curiae brief. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.</li> <li id="fn2">The individual associations are described in the <a href="/system/files/media/file/2020/05/19-840tsac36StateHospitalAssociations.pdf#page=35">Appendix</a> to this brief.</li> <li id="fn3"><em>See</em> Pet’r States Br. 25–48; U.S. House of Representatives Br. 14–19, 34–50.</li> <li id="fn4">Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010). All citations to the law are styled as ACA § ___.</li> </ol> Wed, 13 May 2020 14:44:53 -0500 ACA Individual Mandate Case (Texas v. California)