First Edition: March 6, 2015
Today's early morning highlights from the major news organizations.
Kaiser Health News:
Slightly More Latinos And African Americans Sign Up On California Exchange
The percentage of Latinos and African Americans who signed up for subsidized health coverage through California’s insurance exchange increased modestly during the second annual open enrollment period, officials announced Thursday. About 37 percent of subsidized enrollees are Latino, up from 31 percent during the first enrollment period ending in March 2014, according to data released by Covered California. About 4 percent are African American, up from 3 percent last year. The numbers, released by Covered California during its monthly board meeting, include only those enrollees eligible for subsidies who responded to questions about their race or ethnicity. (Gorman, 3/6)
The Washington Post:
When The Subject Is Obamacare, Never Forget About Chief Justice Roberts
Three years ago, a gruff-sounding Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a question during the marathon hearings on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act about whether the mandate that individuals buy health insurance was really more like a tax on those who do not. It got a little bit lost in the blizzard of words that accompanied the hearings, but turned out to be the foundation of Roberts’s opinion saving Obamacare. Now, in the analysis of Wednesday’s King v. Burwell hearing, Roberts might be overlooked again. (Barnes, 3/5)
The New York Times:
With Eyes On His Vote In Health Subsidies Case, Roberts Lets On Little
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. usually displays his supple intellect and competitive nature at Supreme Court arguments, where he makes points and punctures the positions of the lawyers who appear before him. But on Wednesday, hearing one of the most important cases in his almost 10 years on the court, he turned into a sphinx. He asked just a few questions as other justices repeatedly talked over one another during arguments over the fate of President Obama’s health care law. (Liptak, 3/5)
The Washington Post's Wonkblog:
The Surprising Issue That Could Determine Obamacare’s Future
Whether Obamacare survives its latest trip to the Supreme Court surprisingly could come down to a question of the federal government's power over the states. After nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments Wednesday, there's generally agreement the expected ruling in the case -- questioning the legality of subsidies for millions buying health insurance through 34 federal-run exchanges -- is too close to call. Chief Justice John Roberts, the pivotal swing vote upholding the Affordable Care Act three years ago, gave away nothing that would show which way he's leaning. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to strike down the entire law last time, asked tough enough questions of both the plaintiffs and the federal government that indicated his vote could be in play. (MIllman, 3/5)
The New York Times:
As Supreme Court Weighs Health Law, G.O.P. Plans To Replace It
The legal campaign to destroy President Obama’s health care law may be nearing its conclusion, but as the Supreme Court deliberates over the law’s fate, the search for a replacement by Republican lawmakers is finally gaining momentum. Senior Republicans in Congress hope that by June, the Supreme Court will invalidate the subsidies that 7.5 million Americans in 34 states have been given to purchase health insurance through the federal Healthcare.gov website. (Weisman, 3/6)
The Associated Press:
States On Edge About Future Of Health Insurance Markets
Mixed signals from the Supreme Court have states on edge about the future of health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. And a summer decision from the justices leaves little time for backup planning. Many governors, especially Republicans, want the federal government to craft a contingency plan and at least one governor — in Pennsylvania — is pursuing a state exchange, which would make sure his state was able to receive the subsidy. (Kennedy, 3/5)
The Wall Street Journal:
Health-Law Ruling Could Prompt Some States To Act
Justice Samuel Alito ’s suggestion that the Supreme Court could delay for months the impact of a decision to gut the health law revives the possibility that at least a dozen states could take action to limit the effect of such a ruling. Justice Alito’s remarks came Wednesday during oral arguments in a case that seeks to halt the use of tax credits to offset the cost of insurance premiums for residents in about three dozen states that don’t operate their own insurance exchanges and use the federal HealthCare.gov site instead. Challengers in the case argue the law allows the tax credits only for insurance buyers in states with their own exchanges—currently just 13 states. (Radnofsky and Bravin, 3/5)
NPR/Center For Public Integrity:
State Lawmakers Keep Busy While Supreme Court Weighs Obamacare
As the nation awaits a Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, lawmakers in many states are moving ahead with a range of Affordable Care Act bills, some of which seek to bolster the law and others that are bent on derailing it. The Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, focuses on subsidies paid to millions of Americans who bought health insurance through exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act. At issue: whether subsidies issued through exchanges operated by the federal government are legal. By the end of June, the justices are expected to issue a ruling, which could either uphold the law as it now operates or strike down those subsidies for good. (Schulte, 3/5)
The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire:
Politics Counts: Who Wants Congress To Keep Health Subsidies?
The Supreme Court heard arguments in King v. Burwell this week, but lawmakers were listening closely too. The issue before the court is whether citizens of states that are using the federal insurance exchange are eligible for subsidies, amid a dispute over wording in the law. If the court finds those people aren’t eligible, more than seven million people in as many as 37 states could lose those supports, making insurance prohibitively expensive. (Chinni, 3/5)
The Washington Post:
Improper Payments Jumped $125 Billion For Federal Government Last Year
The federal government lost ground last year in reducing improper payments from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and tax credits for the working poor, experiencing a nearly 18 percent increase in the costs. A report this week from the Government Accountability Office said the U.S. government forked over an estimated $124.7 billion to ineligible recipients in 2014, representing the first jump in four years. (Hicks, 3/6)
The Washington Post:
At VA Health Facilities, Whistleblowers Still Fear Retaliation
After five suicidal veterans walked out of the emergency room without getting help during a single week in January, Brandon Coleman brought his concerns to his supervisor at the VA Hospital in Phoenix. Coleman, a therapist and decorated veteran, urgently warned that there was a broader problem with how suicidal patients were being handled. Six days after he spoke with his boss, Coleman recalled, he was suspended from his job. He believes it was in retaliation. (Wax-Thibodeaux, 3/5)
The Washington Post:
Widening Superbug Outbreak Raises Questions For FDA, Manufacturers
Young is among seven patients at UCLA who were infected with a hard-to-treat “superbug” that hospital officials traced to two specialized scopes that they said were contaminated despite being thoroughly cleaned. Two of the patients later died, and scores more were potentially exposed. After the incident became public, the Food and Drug Administration warned that the devices, called duodenoscopes, can be difficult to sanitize and “may facilitate the spread of deadly bacteria.” (Dennis, 3/5)
Los Angeles Timies:
Chiropractors Lobby Against Bill Ending Belief Exemptions For Vaccines
Legislation that would do away with personal-belief exemptions for childhood vaccines, filed in response to the recent measles outbreak in California, has quickly emerged as one of this year's most polarizing bills. One interest jumping into the fray: chiropractors. (Mason, 3/5)
Los Angeles Times:
Port Workers' Families Denied Medical Claims, Lawsuit Says
The spouses of two West Coast dockworkers and a doctor have sued a union health insurance plan for longshoremen, alleging millions of dollars in legitimate unpaid claims in the last two years. The suit, which seeks class-action status, comes just after shipping companies and dockworkers with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union resolved a long-standing labor dispute that led to severe congestion at West Coast ports in recent months. (Kirkham, 3/5)
NPR:
Colorado Debates Whether IUDs Are Contraception Or Abortion
A popular contraception program in Colorado is receiving criticism from conservative lawmakers who say that the program's use of intrauterine devices, or IUDs, qualify as abortions. More than 30,000 women in Colorado have gotten a device because of the state program, the Colorado Family Planning Initiative. An IUD normally costs between $500 and several thousand dollars. Through the program women could receive one for free. (Verlee, 5/5)