Judge Upholds Rights to Subsidies in Health Care Law
By: Robert Pear (NY Times) January 2014
WASHINGTON — A federal judge rejected a legal challenge on Wednesday to a central part of President Obama’s health care law, ruling that millions of low- and moderate-income people could obtain health insurance subsidies regardless of whether they bought coverage through the federal insurance exchange or in marketplaces run by the states.
Critics of the law said a literal reading of it would allow subsidies only in the 14 states that ran their own exchanges. But the judge, Paul L. Friedman of the Federal District Court here, said this was absurd and contrary to the whole purpose of the Affordable Care Act.
“The plain text of the statute, the statutory structure and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally facilitated exchanges,” Judge Friedman said.
After analyzing the law and its legislative history, Judge Friedman said, “Congress assumed that tax credits would be available nationwide” and “on any exchange, regardless of whether it is operated by a state” or by federal officials.
The ruling is important because the federal government runs the exchange serving 36 states, accounting for about two-thirds of the nation’s population.
Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director of Families U.S.A., a liberal-leaning advocacy group, said the ruling was “an important win for health care consumers across the country.”
Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian research organization that is coordinating the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs would appeal the decision.
From Oct. 1, when the exchanges opened, through Dec. 28, nearly 1.2 million people selected health insurance plans in the federal marketplace, and nearly one million chose plans in state exchanges.
About four-fifths of people choosing health plans at both levels of government qualified for subsidies that reduced their premiums. Subsidies may be available to people with annual incomes up to $45,960 for individuals and up to $94,200 for a family of four.
The lawsuit was filed by people in states using the federal exchange: Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. They objected to being required to buy insurance even with subsidies to help defray the cost.
They said the plain language of the health care law provided subsidies specifically for insurance purchased on “an exchange established by the state.” They said Congress provided subsidies in this way as an incentive for states to establish and operate exchanges, rather than leaving the task to the federal government.
However, Judge Friedman found no evidence of such a purpose. He quoted remarks on the Senate floor by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and an architect of the law, who said in December 2009 that Congress was giving states a choice to set up their own exchanges or allow the federal government to do so.
When federal officials set up an exchange, Judge Friedman said, they “stand in the shoes of the state.”
The plaintiffs’ argument seems intuitively appealing but leads to “strange or absurd results,” the judge said, adding that courts must interpret statutes as a whole, not just isolated provisions.
Categories
- Benefits Resources
- Bonding
- BOP
- Business Insurance
- Commercial Auto
- Commercial Property
- Company News
- Construction
- Crime Insurance
- Cyber Insurance
- Directors & Officers
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practice Liability Insurance
- Entertainment
- General Liability
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare
- Healthcare Reform
- Homeowners Insurance
- Hospitality
- Manufacturing
- Medical Malpractice
- Mining & Energy
- Nightclubs
- Personal Auto
- Personal Insurance
- Professional
- Restaurants
- Retail & Wholesale
- Risk Management Resources
- Safety Topics
- SBA Bonds
- Security
- Seminars
- Technology
- Tourism
- Transportation
- Uncategorized
- Workers Compensation
Archives
- May 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- February 2013
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- November 2008
- August 2008