States, Amici Respond In California Cost-Sharing Reduction Payment Case

On October 21, 2017, attorneys general from eighteen states and the District of Columbia filed their responsive brief in California v. Trump, in which they are seeking an order preventing the Trump administration from  halting cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments reimbursing insurers for reducing cost-sharing for low-income consumers as required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The states reiterate their argument that the text and legislative plan of the ACA demonstrate that Congress appropriated funding for the CSR payments through the ACA’s premium tax credit appropriation; they also argue that the insurance markets created by the ACA cannot function on an annual appropriation basis. The states reject the administration’s argument that they should seek relief through the CSR payment case pending in the District of Columbia, noting that the D.C. case involves different issues than their case and that both the states and the administration have argued that the D.C. court has no jurisdiction in any event because the House of Representatives lacks standing to sue. The states describe again the irreparable injuries they will suffer in terms of increased insurance costs, insurer market exits, more uninsured individuals, and increased administrative burdens if the termination of CSR payments is not enjoined. They also argue that a preliminary injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo and to avoid “chaos, uncertainty, and confusion.” Friend-Of-The-Court Briefs F...
Source: Health Affairs Blog - Category: Health Management Authors: Tags: Following the ACA Insurance and Coverage cost-sharing reduction payments Source Type: blogs