Health Law May Allow Some Limited Insurance Coverage
Politico Pro points out that the overhaul might not guarantee minimum standards in some specific cases. Another analysis finds that drug companies could be hurt if the Supreme Court strikes down some or all of the law.
Politico Pro: 'Skimpy' Plans May Satisfy Mandate
Think the individual mandate confuses people? Try linking the mandate to actuarial value. Many think the individual mandate means people have to pay a fine if they don't have health insurance that meets certain standards. But it's more complicated than that. There are several ways people can satisfy the mandate even with limited coverage. The law imposes many rules intended to get most insurance policies to cover at least 60 percent of expected health costs for a standard population, a measure known as actuarial value. All plans sold in the health insurance exchanges — the only place people can use federal subsidies — will have to meet that 60 percent threshold (Feder, 5/25).
Reuters: Analysis: Drugmakers Vulnerable If Health Law Revoked
Pharmaceutical companies, which were spared some of the more sweeping regulations in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, could come under more pressure if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the 2010 law. Drugmakers agreed to pay about $100 billion over 10 years in excise taxes and discounts on medications under the law, but were expected to benefit overall as more than 30 million uninsured Americans get health coverage (Beasley, 5/24).
Another report notes a consumer benefit from the law that will become available this fall.
CQ HealthBeat: Report: Most Americans To Get Easily Understood Summaries Of Health Plans This Fall
Starting in September, 173 million Americans will get an easy-to-understand summary of the benefits and out-of-pocket costs of their health plans, says a report Families USA released Thursday. Mandated under a summary of benefits requirement in the health care law, the summaries may give the controversial law a bit of a boost in the eyes of a skeptical public. Insurer and employer groups lobbied hard to delay the eight-page explanations, saying they were too difficult to put together on time in an accurate way. But the Obama administration refused to postpone the release (Reichard, 5/24).
Rumors hit Washington Thursday about a court decision, but it turned out to be a case of the nerves.
National Journal: The Supreme Court Rumor Mill: Frenzied And Wrong
Rumors were flying around the Capitol this week that the Supreme Court would decide the health care cases on Thursday. They were wrong. Hill staffers, Health and Human Services Department employees, and think-tankers were all abuzz on Wednesday with speculation that the Supreme Court of the United States might issue its opinion on the Affordable Care Act case on Thursday, a month sooner than most court-watchers predict. If the rumors had been correct, they would have been surprising for two reasons: 1) It would have been an unusually accelerated timeframe for the Court to issue such an opinion, and 2) nothing ever leaks from the Supreme Court (Sanger-Katz and McCarthy, 5/24).