Health

Supreme Court’s New Health Law Case Cuts Both Ways

Published

10 years ago

February 5, 2015

In this March 28, 2012 file photo, supporters of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington on the final day of arguments regarding the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. Nearly five years after Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, the Supreme Court will again get to decide its fate. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking another look at President Barack Obama’s health care law, and this time it’s not just the White House that should be worried.

Republican lawmakers and governors, too, will feel the backlash if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.

Obama’s law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don’t have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.

Disruptions in the affected states wouldn’t end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market could be next. Self-pay customers would face a jump in premiums because they’re in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.

Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the overhaul work. Withdrawing them would “make the situation worse than it was before” Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.

The debate over “Obamacare” was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance.

“It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people,” said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary now heading a health care consulting firm.

The legal issues involve the leeway federal agencies have in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and the law’s Democratic authors say Congress clearly intended to provide subsidies in every state.

While predicting a victory, the White House has not prepared consumers for the consequences of a reversal. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell repeatedly said that “nothing has changed,” even as other supporters of the law grew alarmed when the Supreme Court unexpectedly took the case.

At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Burwell refused to get into ‘what-if’ scenarios, telling Republican lawmakers she is completely focused on the current sign-up season.

With oral arguments set for March 4 and a decision expected early in the summer, here’s what’s at stake:

RED STATES IN THE PATH

Insurance losses would be concentrated in Republican-led states, which have resisted “Obamacare.”

Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey are among those with the most to lose. Residents of blue states that are running their own markets would continue to receive benefits.

Because the health law’s 2015 sign-up season is still under way, it’s unclear how many millions of people could become uninsured. Two independent studies estimate around 8 million.

Not all the 37 states where the federal government is currently running insurance markets would be affected equally. Some have made progress setting up their own exchanges.

TIME TO SCRAMBLE

If the Supreme Court rules in late June, that would leave about three months until the start of the next sign-up season for coverage.

If the ruling goes against the subsidies, it’s unclear whether the courts can delay the effects for more than a few weeks, and most state legislatures are not in session during the summer.

There’s speculation that the White House could quickly roll out an administrative fix, but Obama could also toss the whole mess into the lap of the GOP-led Congress.

Technically, a tweak from Congress could fix the problem. But after repeated votes to repeal “Obamacare,” would any Republicans be willing to facilitate its rescue?

“We don’t see fixes the administration can make, and we don’t see Congress acting to fix this,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, a public-policy center aligned with the White House.

REPUBLICAN vs. REPUBLICAN?

Faced with constituents at risk of losing coverage, some congressional Republicans may be willing to fix the subsidies in exchange for concessions from Obama on a long hit list of health law provisions they object to.

But other Republicans will not want to lift a finger.

“The president will say, ‘With one line of legislation, you could save 5 million people from losing their health insurance,’ and the Republicans need to have a unified response,” said Leavitt, the former HHS secretary. “If they don’t, then it creates a problem for them.”

Despite several proposals in the five years since Obama’s overhaul passed, Republicans have not coalesced around an alternative and remain hard-pressed to do so.

To complicate matters, congressional action restoring some or all of the subsidies would have to be paid for with spending cuts or tax increases.

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the health care law, the result was a 5-4 decision upholding its central requirement that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance. This time, it won’t just be political junkies holding their breath before the announcement, but many consumers as well.

___

The case is King v. Burwell, docket No. 14-114.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

High Cost of Hepatitis C Drug Hits California Budget

Don't Miss

Lung Cancer Now Top Cancer Killer for Women in Rich Nations

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

3 weeks ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oak Temple Hill Hosts Interfaith Leaders from Across the Bay Area

Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Published

4 weeks ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

Troy McCombs (from the state of Washington), Elder Mark Mortensen (from Irvine, CA), Michael Pappas, Rev. Ken Chambers, Dr. Ejaz Naqvi, Elder Sigfried Nauman (from the state of Washington), and Richard Kopf. Courtesy photo.

Special to the Post

Interfaith leaders from the Bay Area participated in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of communication leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held on Temple Hill in Oakland on May 31. Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Chambers, said he is thankful for the leadership and support of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints’ global ministry, which recently worked with the interfaith congregations of ICAC to help Yasjmine Oeveraas a homeless Norwegian mother and her family find shelter and access to government services.

Oeveraas told the story of how she was assisted by ICAC to the Oakland Post. “I’m a Norwegian citizen who escaped an abusive marriage with nowhere to go. We’ve been homeless in Florida since January 2024. Recently, we came to California for my son’s passport, but my plan to drive for Uber fell through, leaving us homeless again. Through 2-1-1, I was connected to Rev. Ken Chambers, pastor of the West Side Missionary Baptist Church and president of the Interfaith Council of Alameda County, and his car park program, which changed our lives. We spent about a week-and-a-half living in our car before being blessed with a trailer. After four years of uncertainty and 18 months of homelessness, this program has given us stability and hope again.

“Now, both my son and I have the opportunity to continue our education. I’m pursuing cyber analytics, something I couldn’t do while living in the car. My son can also complete his education, which is a huge relief. This program has given us the space to focus and regain our dignity. I am working harder than ever to reach my goals and give back to others in need.”

Richard Kopf, communication director for The Church of Jesus Christ in the Bay Area stated: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we embrace interfaith cooperation and are united in our efforts to show God’s love for all of his children.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

“Unnecessary Danger”: Gov. Newsom Blasts Rollback of Emergency Abortion Care Protections

Effective May 29, CMS rescinded guidance that had reinforced the obligation of hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition. Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

Published

4 weeks ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

iStock.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom is criticizing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for rolling back federal protections for emergency abortion care, calling the move an “unnecessary danger” to the lives of pregnant patients in crisis.

Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

“Today’s decision will endanger lives and lead to emergency room deaths, full stop,” Newsom said in a statement. “Doctors must be empowered to save the lives of their patients, not hem and haw over political red lines when the clock is ticking. In California, we will always protect the right of physicians to do what’s best for their patients and for women to make the reproductive decisions that are best for their families.”

The CMS guidance originally followed the 2022 Dobbs decision, asserting that federal law could preempt state abortion bans in emergency care settings. However, legal challenges from anti-abortion states created uncertainty, and the Trump administration’s dismissal of a key lawsuit against Idaho in March removed federal enforcement in those states.

While the rollback does not change California law, Newsom said it could discourage hospitals and physicians in other states from providing emergency care. States like Idaho, Mississippi, and Oklahoma do not allow abortion as a stabilizing treatment unless a patient’s life is already at risk.

California has taken several steps to expand reproductive protections, including the launch of Abortion.CA.Gov and leadership in the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a coalition of 23 governors supporting access to abortion care.