Healthcare reform

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 time of “what-ifs” for employers ended Thursday as the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling upholding the challenge to state subsidies in King v. Burwell, and employers should maintain business as usual going forward, according to most industry observers.

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.

Commentary: The ACA is “unremovable,” says columnist Nelson Griswold, so advisers must learn how to leverage it.

Commentary: Chances of the industry ever being the way it was prior to the ACA are nonexistent, which we should all hail as a good thing, says columnist Wendy Keneipp following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold ACA subsidies.

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.

The Senate yesterday revived its effort to separate broker commissions from a medical loss ratio formula created by the Affordable Care Act.

Brokers and agents welcome legislation introduced Tuesday to the Senate that would enhance broker access to information about marketplace enrollment, leveling the playing field with navigators and assisters.

Commentary: The vast majority of employers are not prepared to meet — and some remain simply unaware of — the employer mandate’s complex reporting obligations.

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?

The House passed H.R. 160, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, by a vote of 280 to 140. The bill was introduced by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

A legislation proposal by 32 Republicans that would temporarily preserve federal premium subsidies for Healthcare.gov enrollees through August 2017 if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional in King v. Burwell would simply bandage a festering wound. That’s the conclusion of a recent American Academy of Actuaries analysis.

Ending the Cadillac tax, simplifying the reporting process and eliminating the automatic enrollment requirement are a few of the legislative recommendations the American Benefits Council is urging Congress to act on.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ internal controls did not effectively ensure the accuracy of nearly $2.8 billion in financial assistance payments to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act during the first four months that the payments were made, according to a new government report.

Small-size employers with between 51 and 100 employees currently in large-business group health plans will have to transition to small-business group plans upon their renewal on or after Jan. 1, 2016.

HHS Secretary Burwell says a Supreme Court ruling upholding the legality of subsidies on the federal exchange should shift the conversation about the ACA away from politics and toward improving access to affordable quality health care.

Assurant announced June 10 it will exit the health insurance market and sell some small group business lines to insurance holding company National General Holdings.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff in King v. Burwell would most affect Florida exchange subsides, although the impact would be far reaching, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds.

Prompted by industry questions and concerns, the IRS has issued updated guidance to clarify ACA reporting requirements for applicable large employers, particularly those with special circumstances.