American Hospital Association December 19, 2019
Sean Marotta

Q: What is this case about, anyway?

A: The Affordable Care Act requires most Americans to have qualifying health coverage, a provision known as the “individual mandate.” Americans who refused to obtain coverage had to pay a penalty as part of their individual federal income tax. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in 2017 kept the individual mandate but reduced the penalty for refusing to obtain coverage to $0.

In a previous case, NFIB v. Sebelius, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the individual mandate was constitutional because it essentially functioned as a tax. But with the penalty zeroed out, a group of states led by the Texas attorney general sued. The plaintiffs argued that, in light of...

Today's Sponsors

LEK
ZeOmega

Today's Sponsor

LEK

 
Topics: ACA (Affordable Care Act), Congress / White House, Govt Agencies, Insurance, Patient / Consumer, Payer, Provider, Public Exchange, Regulations
Fate of ACA Preventive Services Uncertain Before Supreme Court
After slow start, ACA enrollment takes off
CMS says record 16.6 million have signed up for Jan. 1 Marketplace coverage
Federal ACA Marketplace Enrollment Lagging
CMS extends ACA enrollment deadline

Share This Article