ACA Round-Up: Litigation Over Cost-Sharing Reductions And Reinsurance Fees, Tax Filings, And More

On May 30 the House of Representatives filed its response to the motion of attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia asking that the stay in House v. Price be lifted and that they be allowed to intervene in the appeal. The federal government had filed its response on May 26. In its short response to the states’ motion, the federal government simply asked that the case remain in abeyance and that the court not address the motion to intervene while negotiations continued with the House. The House, however, went further, also arguing that “it is entirely speculative whether the Administration will ever take a position in this litigation at odds with the States’ preferred position.” Moreover, the House argued, the administration could cease making cost-sharing reduction payments at any time regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The court could not compel it to do otherwise even if the states intervened—or to block a settlement at the states’ instance. For the same reason, the House argued, the court can do nothing to relieve the uncertainty pervading insurance markets while the case is pending. The House asked, therefore, that the abeyance not be lifted to hear the state’s motion. Court Refuses To Rehear State Challenge To Reinsurance Fee Assessment On May 26, 2017, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a rehearing by the entire circuit of a three-judge panel’s decision in Ohio v. United States. The panel rejected Ohio’s stat...
Source: Health Affairs Blog - Category: Health Management Authors: Tags: Following the ACA Insurance and Coverage house v. price risk corridor payments Source Type: blogs