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
Payer executives expect limited change in ACA subsidies
Commercial, individual markets growing increasingly concentrated: 7 numbers to know
GAO finds private insurance market became increasingly concentrated last decade
Section 1557 Rule Mandates Identification And Mitigation Of Discriminatory Clinical Algorithms
Employer Plans Beware: Alternative Funding Programs May Be Riskier Than They Appear

Share This Article