Healthcare reform

For most Americans, what they saw and heard surrounding the historic hearings on health care reform last week hasn’t changed their opinion of the law or the Supreme Court.

President Barack Obama said on Monday he was confident the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the health care reform law that has been one of the signature issues of his presidency.

ERISA defines a multiple employer welfare arrangement as an employee welfare plan or any other arrangement which is established or maintained for the purpose of providing welfare benefits to the employees of two or more "unrelated" entities. Thus, if a welfare plan is maintained by an employer for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to that employer's employees, former employees (e.g., retirees) or beneficiaries (e.g., spouses, former spouses, dependents) of such employees, the plan will be considered a "single employer" plan and not a MEWA.

Among the most controversial requirements of health care reform is a preventive care provision that requires all insurers and nongrandfathered health plan sponsors to cover contraceptives without a deductible or copayment. Coverage includes all FDA-approved contraception methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling.

Protesters packed up signs and TV talkers put away their microphones Wednesday night, the beginning of the long wait till the Supreme Court decides the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Just as bright yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” and American flags flew high in front of the Supreme Court this week, so did the tempers of the crowds of supporters and opponents of health care reform gathered outside.

Wednesday may be the stickiest part of the three-day hearings at the Supreme Court regarding health care reform’s individual mandate, as the issues being argued on this final day have the greatest potential to make HR/benefits managers lives — and those of the employees and families they serve — quite complicated. What is at hand today is the issue of “severability,” whether the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must fall if the insurance mandate is found to be unconstitutional, or if the other remaining parts of the law can survive.

The Supreme Court steps were abuzz Tuesday morning with supporters, opponents and onlookers, as they either championed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, called it a major setback to religious freedom and personal liberty, or simply wanted to observe the scene surrounding the historical arguments first-hand.

The atmosphere in the chamber on Monday as the Supreme Court Justices began hearing oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was “electric” says James Napoli, an employee benefits lawyer for Proskauer, who attended the proceedings. He’s also the counsel of record for the amicus brief filed on behalf of the American Benefits Council concerning the severability of the individual mandate. In this exclusive interview with EBN, Napoli shares his thoughts on what happened at the Supreme Court yesterday and where he thinks things are headed on the second day of arguments Tuesday.

As the Supreme Court wraps up oral arguments on the core of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — the minimum coverage provision that will address the individual mandate — brokers express their concern surrounding health reform and how they are preparing clients for the future with or without it.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared prepared to decide the fate of President Obama's sweeping health care law rather than delaying for years a review of the mandate that Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty.

The Supreme Court heard the first of three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sparking speculation, analysis and protests throughout Washington, D.C. and the nation.

Employee benefit brokers and advisers are paying close attention to the proceedings as the Supreme Court takes up an historic test of whether health reform is valid under the country's Constitution.

With the Supreme Court tackling constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act during oral arguments March 26-28, the Kaiser Family Foundation has published a 10-page primer of the issues and arguments before the court.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — specifically the health care reform law’s individual mandate — starting on Monday and is not expected to rule until as late as June 30. The justices could throw out the entire law or uphold it. They may also issue only a partial ruling, striking down the mandate, for example, or overturning the planned expansion of the Medicaid health program for the poor. Or they could put off a decision until after the law comes into full force in 2014.

The Obama administration began laying out its blueprint last week for accommodating the moral concerns of religious institutions that oppose its policy of requiring free coverage for women's contraceptives through employer-sponsored health plans.

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it will release audio recordings and transcripts of oral arguments in the health care challenge immediately after the March 26-28 sessions, responding to what it called "extraordinary public interest."

The estimated net costs of expanding health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been reduced by $48 billion through 2021, though fewer people would be covered under private insurance plans, a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows.

Anticipating the impact of health care reform, nearly four in 10 health plan members with employee-sponsored insurance say they would shop for coverage through a health insurance exchange if they had the opportunity, according a survey released yesterday.

A large annual survey of consumer satisfaction with health plans finds 41% of members of employer-sponsored insurance plans would shop for coverage through a private health insurance exchange if their employer provided vouchers for purchasing insurance independently.