Health Care

Can The Health Care Industry Save Obamacare?

Hospitals and insurance companies are coming to the law’s defense before the Supreme Court.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Sam Baker
Jan. 29, 2015, 1:56 a.m.

Health in­sur­ance com­pan­ies and hos­pit­als moun­ted an ag­gress­ive de­fense of Obama­care’s in­sur­ance sub­sidies Wed­nes­day, warn­ing the Su­preme Court that elim­in­at­ing the pay­ments would be “grossly in­equit­able” to mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans.

Both in­dus­tries have a lot on the line as the court pre­pares to hear or­al ar­gu­ments in a law­suit that aims to cut off the Af­ford­able Care Act’s premi­um sub­sidies in most of the coun­try.

In an amicus brief filed Wed­nes­day, health in­surers said a rul­ing against the sub­sidies would have wide­spread and severe ripple ef­fects, po­ten­tially throw­ing states’ en­tire in­sur­ance mar­kets in­to chaos.

Stop­ping the flow of sub­sidies “would cre­ate severely dys­func­tion­al in­sur­ance mar­kets” in 34 states, Amer­ica’s Health In­sur­ance Plans, the in­dustry’s lead­ing trade or­gan­iz­a­tion, said in its amicus brief. “It would leave con­sumers in those States with a more un­stable mar­ket and far high­er costs than if the ACA had not been en­acted.”

The case be­fore the Su­preme Court, King v. Bur­well, ar­gues that Obama­care’s sub­sidies—which help the vast ma­jor­ity of en­rollees cov­er part of their premi­ums—should only be avail­able in states that es­tab­lished their own in­sur­ance ex­changes. People who live in the states that did not set up their own mar­ket­places should not be re­ceiv­ing fin­an­cial as­sist­ance, the chal­lengers ar­gue.

AHIP, though, said the state and fed­er­al ex­changes work the same as a prac­tic­al is­sue. The sub­sidies and the law’s in­di­vidu­al man­date are part of an in­ter­con­nec­ted series of policies de­signed to sta­bil­ize in­sur­ance mar­kets, AHIP said—ir­re­spect­ive of who runs the ex­change in any par­tic­u­lar mar­ket.

“There is no prac­tic­al reas­on to dis­tin­guish between state- and fed­er­ally-op­er­ated ex­changes in this re­gard,” the brief says. It makes no dif­fer­ence to the mar­ket re­forms wheth­er the ex­change is state- or fed­er­ally op­er­ated. Like­wise from the per­spect­ive of con­sumers, State- and fed­er­ally-op­er­ated ex­changes per­form the same ba­sic func­tions.”

Ac­cord­ing to in­de­pend­ent es­tim­ates, 8 to 10 mil­lion people would likely lose their cov­er­age if the Court in­val­id­ates sub­sidies in the fed­er­ally run ex­changes. And most of the pay­ments in­surers were plan­ning to re­ceive this year—about $32 bil­lion, ac­cord­ing to the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice—would dis­ap­pear as well.

But the con­sequences would spill well bey­ond con­sumers who per­son­ally lost their sub­sidies, AHIP ar­gued. The in­dustry or­gan­iz­a­tion warned of an in­sur­ance “death spir­al” if the Court rules against Obama­care: Only the only sick­est people would be will­ing to buy in­sur­ance even without fin­an­cial as­sist­ance or a man­date to do so, AHIP ar­gued, which would cause premi­ums to in­crease, which would push out more people un­til only the sick­est of the sick re­mained and in­sur­ance be­came totally un­af­ford­able, if it would be avail­able at all.

“These sig­ni­fic­ant ad­verse con­sequences are fun­da­ment­ally in­con­sist­ent with the goals of the ACA, which was in­ten­ded to achieve na­tion­wide re­form and make stable, func­tion­ing in­sur­ance mar­kets avail­able to all Amer­ic­ans,” AHIP wrote.

Hos­pit­als made a sim­il­ar ar­gu­ment in their amicus brief Wed­nes­day. Neal Katyal, a former act­ing so­li­cit­or gen­er­al who is rep­res­ent­ing sev­er­al large hos­pit­al or­gan­iz­a­tions, poin­ted to the ex­per­i­ence of states that tried some of Obama­care’s mar­ket re­forms—such as guar­an­tee­ing cov­er­age to sick people—without also provid­ing sub­sidies or en­act­ing an in­di­vidu­al man­date.

Those state-level ex­per­i­ments were all fail­ures. And, Katyal ar­gued, Con­gress knew that—mean­ing there’s no way it would have in­ten­tion­ally set states up for the same res­ult now.

“It’s really kind of crazy to think that Con­gress would have en­acted a scheme like that” by mak­ing sub­sidies avail­able only in cer­tain states while the rest of the law ap­plied na­tion­wide, Katyal told re­port­ers Wed­nes­day.

He noted that Obama­care in­cluded cuts in Medi­care and Medi­caid pay­ments to hos­pit­als, in­clud­ing re­duc­tions in the pay­ments they re­ceive to off­set the cost of treat­ing un­in­sured pa­tients. Con­gress re­duced those pay­ments in part be­cause more pa­tients would have in­sur­ance and be able to pay their bills. But, Katyal noted, if the Su­preme Court in­val­id­ates Obama­care’s sub­sidies, those cus­tom­ers would van­ish—yet the oth­er pay­ment cuts would re­main.

The res­ult would be “a wide­spread and massive dis­rup­tion “¦ to the en­tire health care sys­tem na­tion­wide,” he said.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.