Exchanges

Friday’s landmark ruling on gay marriage poses both challenges and benefits to employers.

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision being cheered as a step toward equality is also poised to carry unintended consequences, including some that could make life harder for employees, gay and straight alike.

Commentary: The next case to watch, launched by Speaker John Boehner last November, could once again put public exchange assistance in jeopardy.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell that subsides on the federally-facilitated marketplace can continue may present an opportunity for struggling state-based marketplaces to switch to Healthcare.gov, as other challenges remain for exchanges nationwide.

Eliminating subsidies ‘would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange,’ Chief Roberts says.

Today, in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell that subsidies used to purchase health insurance in the 36 states on the federally facilitated marketplace are legal, thus avoiding the “death spiral” so often referred to by Congress. What does this ruling mean for employers?

The Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision in King v. Burwell to uphold subsidies on the federal exchange removes uncertainty and shifts the focus of advisers and their clients back to ACA compliance.

A 6-3 decision in favor of the HHS secretary in King v. Burwell means tax credits can continue to be used to purchase health coverage in states using the federal exchange.

A group of industry players connected to private exchanges launched a coalition Wednesday to serve as a forum to share ideas and best practices, and to increase awareness of private exchanges.

Commentary: Billions of dollars in federal subsidies are on the line in the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated King v. Burwell decision expected any day now. What does that mean for the benefits industry?